Multi-Protocol Label Switching Technology for Next Generation Internet
1999. 9. 2. ETRI
Switching & Transmission Technology Research Laboratory
Chu-Hwan Yim
Topics
Internet - Current Status Current Internet - What is the Problem? MPLS(Multi-Protocol Label Switching) Technology
APNOMS ‘99
2
Internet Topology - USA
A Picture designating the real connection state of USA’s internet.
http://www.caida.org/Presentations/IEPG.9808/outline-1.html
APNOMS ‘99
3
Internet Connection in Korea
APNOMS ‘99
4
Telecom Service Forecasting in Korea
Subscribers (Unit: 10,000)
3000
Telephony
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
ISDN
CATV PC Comm.
Internet
Source: ETRI TM - KII Strategy
APNOMS ‘99
5
Internet Traffic (USA)
Terabyte/day
Rapid Growth of Internet Traffic New Internet Services
IP Voice, Fax IP-VPN
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2003
Total Voice IP VoIP
New Technology
DWDM, ADSL Terabit Router
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: ATM Year’98 AT&T
APNOMS ‘99
6
Average Duration of Internet Calls
Average Holding Time (min.)
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Source: ISS’97
28.9
13.4
4
Internet Rate
7
Voice Call Metered
Internet Flat Rate
APNOMS ‘99
Internet Hop Distance
- Average 15 Hops - the main cause of Internet Delay
APNOMS ‘99
http://www.caida.org/Presentations/IEPG.9808/outline-1.html
8
Internet Loss & Response Time (North America)
Packet Loss Average 6%
Response Time
Average 280 ms
APNOMS ‘99
9
Internet Loss & Response Time (Europe)
Packet Loss
Average 8%
Response Time Average 400 ms
APNOMS ‘99
10
Internet Loss & Response Time (Asia)
Packet Loss
Average 18%
Response Time Average 590 ms
APNOMS ‘99
11
VoIP(Voice over IP) Delay
Gateway Architecture
PSTN
PC-to-PC Architecture
PSTN (Modem)
Internet GW
PSTN
Internet
PSTN (Modem)
GW 30~100* msec
70~110 msec
30~100* msec
140~460 msec 170~500 msec Total delay is dominated by sound card and modem delay(100~430msec).
100~210 msec
Hard to reduce below 100msec of End-to-End delay.
*Case of measured link delay at Chicago-California(2000 miles).
APNOMS ‘99
12
VoIP Quality Characteristic
Loss
20%
A Potentially useful
N: The present quality limitation of VoIP A: Case of insufficient buffer on the path (high loss, low delay) B,C: Case of suitable buffer on the path D: Case of sufficient buffer on the path (low loss, high delay)
10% Good
B
C
5%
Toll Quality
APNOMS ‘99
Required below 7% of loss and below 120msec of delay for reasonable voice quality.
N
D
100ms
150ms
400ms
Delay
13
IEEE Network Jan/Feb 1998
Internet Networking Issues
QoS
- Admission control - Traffic shaping - Scheduling
VPN
- CUG - Reliability - Network management - Billing
High-Speed
Low Cost
- Performance - Low Cost . Equipment - Scalability . Operation
IP over ATM IP over SDH/WDM
IP over ? (MPLS ?)
APNOMS ‘99
14
Requirements of Internet
VPN(Virtual Private Network)
Reduction of Teleco cost (Leased Line, Remote Access) Reduction of INTRANET construction cost(RAS, PABX)
CoS(Class of Service)
To meet the users’ requirements in delay and loss To support various types of traffic in the same network
Flows
Traffic engineering
APNOMS ‘99
15
MPLS and INTERNET
Appropriate for Internet Backbone
Easy to implement VPN
less processing overhead than router-based VPN
Support of CoS
strict QoS support easy to support ‘Differentiated Service’
Traffic Engineering Aspects
Path-level traffic control Dynamic Bandwidth allocation
APNOMS ‘99
16
MPLS Motivations
Simplify integration of ATM and IP Offer both ATM and native IP services in a single
network Offer benefits of traditionally found only in Level 2
networks directly to IP - Traffic Engineering, VPNs Address major network scalability challenges Permit graceful evolution of routing and services
APNOMS ‘99
17
MPLS extends traditional IP in the following areas:
Simplified Forwarding
Based on labels instead of longest prefix-match
Efficient Explicit Routing
Route is specified once by source at path setup time
Traffic Engineering
Split traffic load over multiple parallel or alternate routes
QoS Routing
Select routes based upon QoS requirements
APNOMS ‘99
18
MPLS Network Architecture
Label Switch Router (LSR)
MPLS Domain
LER
• Switching on Label • Label swapping
Label Edge Router (LER)
• Full-function Layer 3 routers • Label Binding based on FIB
MPLS Control Component LER
ATM Switch Fabric
APNOMS ‘99
19
MPLS Network
Routing at Layer 3, Forwarding at Layer 2
End System
LER IP routing IP routing
ATM/FR/ Ethernet (Switch or Router)
End System
LSR IP routing
ATM/FR/ Ethernet (Switch or Router)
LSR IP routing
ATM/FR/ Ethernet (Switch or Router)
LER IP routing
ATM/FR/ Ethernet (Switch or Router)
IP routing
ATM/FR/ Ethernet
ATM/FR/ Ethernet
MPLS Domain
APNOMS ‘99
20
MPLS Components and Protocols
Separation allows flexibility Simple label-swapping paradigm Multiple Control Planes can manipulate labels Various applications can directly manipulate label binding
LDP CR-LDP
Unicast Routing
Multicast Traffic Differental QoS Routing Engineering Services (RSVP) (PIM)
Virtual Private Networks
Label Information Base (LIB) TCP/IP Per-label Forwarding, Queuing, Multicasting ATM, FR, Ethernet, SONET
APNOMS ‘99
21
MPLS Benefits
Integration of IP and ATM
New services and capabilities for IP
VPNs Traffic Engineering
Flexibility in the delivery of new routing services
Scalability
APNOMS ‘99
22
MPLS Internet Premium Service : Super - ISP Service
Premium Internet Access Service
1.5~155Mbps, CoS Selection and QoS Guarantee Service
Service for business user, Value-added items
High-speed Internet Access (1 or 2 Hops in a network)
High-speed Net. Server Access Portal Server, IP/CP Server, E-business, Cyber Mall High-speed access to International Gateway Node
VPN Service
High-speed IP-TV Broadcast Service Role of LER as PoP and GigaPoP
APNOMS ‘99
23
MPLS Internet Backbone Service : Super - NSP Service
ISP Backbone Service
NSP Service for national ISPs Backbone Access Service for regional ISPs Common Int’l Gateway with Caching
Internet Traffic Exchange Service between ISPs
Role of Network Access Point
Peering Service
Service agreement between ISP and NSP Bi-, Multilateral peering
Additional Routing Server Support
Policy-based routing, BB(Bandwidth Broker), RA(Routing Arbiter)
APNOMS ‘99
24
New Services are Driving the Need to Scale IP Networks
• Packet Forwarding • Packet Filtering • Policing • IP Flow Classification • BGP Peering • IGP Scaling • Multicast Scaling • Policy Scaling • Virtual Routing
MPLS: Multiservice IP + ATM
Source: NGN’98
APNOMS ‘99
25
Driving Force in IP Networking
Network Management
Scalable Multicast
Intelligent Data Network Extranets Intranets
New IP Services Traffic Management
Traffic Engineering CoS, QoS and Differential Services MPLS Multiservice Network
Security
Directory Service
Carrier-Class WAN Backbone with Quality IP
Source: NGN’98
APNOMS ‘99
26