Transcript Document

Virtual Tradeshow
LTE Backhaul:
New Architectures for All-IP
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Moderated by
Patrick Donegan
Senior Analyst
Our Panelists
• Ran Avital, VP Marketing, Ceragon
• Ralph Santitoro,Director of Carrier
Ethernet Market Development, Fujitsu
Network Communications
• Eitan Schwartz, VP Pseudowire & Ethernet
Access, RAD Data Communications
3G W-CDMA Architecture
Iub interface
Iu PS interface
Data Core
(SGSN/GGSN)
ATM/IP
Iu CS interface
Voice Core
(MSC)
Iub interface
ATM/IP
4G LTE Architecture
IP
X2
interface
S1 interface
IP
S1 interface
Evolved
Packet
Core
The statement below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“LTE is the first genuinely all-IP
wireless standard. It requires IP/MPLS
routing in every node in the network,
including throughout the backhaul.”
Technology Options
For Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE)
Significant Differences Among Number of Layers to Manage
Non-Routed
Routed
Static
PW/MPLS
IP/MPLS
T-MPLS MPLS-TP
PBB-TE
VLAN Tag
Switching
IP/MPLS-Based COE
IS-IS, OSPF, BGP, IP addressing, BFD
MPLS LSP
PW
Eth
Ethernet+PW+LSP
MPLS-TP-based COE
MPLS-TP LSP
PW
Eth
BFD, RSVP-TE/LDP, FRR
T-LDP/BFD, VCCV
802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731
(3) Data Plane Layers
1) Ethernet
2) Pseudowire (PW)
3) LSP
(1) Control Plane Layer
• IP
PW
Eth
Ethernet+PW+LSP
PW
Eth
BFD, Protection Protocol
BFD, VCCV
802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731
(3) Data Plane Layers
1) Ethernet
2) Pseudowire (PW)
3) LSP
Ethernet-based COE
S-VLAN or PBB-TE Tunnel
Eth
Ethernet
Eth
G.8031, 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731
(1) Data Plane Layer
• Ethernet
Ethernet-based COE simplifies OAM&P
Only 1 Layer to manage: Ethernet
The statement below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“The X2 interface between
eNode Bs will only support a little
bit of cell handover traffic initially –
it probably won’t be used
for anything more than that.”
Proposed LTE Architecture
• Example 3
• Backhaul for LTE
• EVPL for S1 interface
• E-LAN for X2 interface
Carrier Ethernet
Aggregation Network
Carrier Ethernet
Access Network
RAN BS
UNI
ENNI
UNI
UNI
ENNI
Carrier Ethernet
Access Network
RAN BS
RAN BS
EVPL 1
EVPL 2
EVPL 3
EVPLAN
RAN NC
The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“Most integrated fixed and wireless carriers
will implement an L3-based backhaul for
LTE because they already have the L3
engineering skill-sets”
“Most pure-play wireless operators and
wholesale backhaul providers will implement
an L2 backhaul network – because they don’t.”
L2/L3 Backhaul Challenges
• Wholesale backhaul providers typically prefer L2:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Simpler to provision
Scalable BW “pipes” for unpredictable needs
Strong Ethernet OAM mechanisms  offer SLA
Sub 50ms failover with 802.3ad and G.8032
Pseudowire helps support 2G/3G services, in addition to LTE
Powerful diagnostic tools
• “Pure-Play” wireless operators typically prefer L2:
• Simple / automatic provisioning
• Ethernet circuit validation, PM, fault detection and analysis
• Traffic engineering  oversubscribe link bandwidth
• Integrated carriers may prefer L3 (skill sets)
• Mesh, alternate routing, but less developed OAM
Audience Poll
“As LTE is an all-IP network, it will require
routing at every node in the network,
including all the backhaul nodes.”
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
•
•
•
•
•
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
Multi-Generation Backhaul
“Transporting legacy 2G and 3G cellular traffic
over the existing TDM network while
LTE is transported over a separate
packet backhaul is optimal.”
“Better that than trying to emulate2G and 3G
over a single packet backhaul for all
generations of cellular traffic.”
Evolution From Sonet
To Packet-Based Ethernet MBH
PMO:
Sonet
FMO Step 1:
Add COE over Sonet
to increase
bandwidth efficiency
MSPP
Packet
Optical
Networking
Sonet
Sonet
TDM
EoS
DS1s
Ethernet
2G/3G
TDM
DS1s
FMO Step 2:
Begin Migration to EoF
packet network.
Existing services unaffected
Packet
Optical
Networking
Sonet
COE
TDM
Ethernet
DS1s
2G/3G LTE
EoF
COE
Ethernet
2G/3G 3G/LTE
Packet-optical networking platform with COE facilitates
MBH network migration of multi-generation 2G/3G/LTE services
The statement below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“There is a big difference
between backhaul equipment
being Ethernet-ready
and being LTE-ready.”
LTE Backhaul Requirements
(…and the radio perspective)
Requirements
High Capacities
Peak rate & average
Low latency
Handover interface (X2)
Enhanced services
Deployment paradigms
Migration strategies
Synchronization
Convergence
Details
50-200 Mbit/s per site
173 Mbit/s vs. 35 Mbit/s
<10msec
E-LAN for eNBs Communication
Service-aware networks
Hotspot the size of a city/rural BB
TDM  Ethernet 2G3GLTE
E1/T1 for legacy. 1588V2 & SyncE
True multiplay operators
The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“The differences in synchronization
requirements between
3G and LTE are academic.”
“This is because most operators are going
to leave a T1/E1 at the cell site for
packet backhaul synchronization
rather than adopt a new standard,
none of which is mature yet.”
Multi-Generation Backhaul with
Multiple Synchronization Options
Sync-E
ETH
FE/GbE
IP Node B
NTR
IP-DSLAM
Adaptive /
IEEE 1588-2008
2G BSC
TDM
ATM IMA
SHDSL
Node B
3G RNC
ETH
Sync-E
E1/T1
ATM
eNode B
TDM
TDM link
aGW
S1 (ETH)
E1/T1
ATM IMA
Physical-layer Sync
Packet-based Sync
E1/T1 TDM link
Adaptive
Sync-Ethernet (G.8262)
1588-2008
NTR – DSL/GPON
NTP
The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“LTE’s All-IP architecture will leave the
backhaul open to security attacks on
a far greater scale than ever before.”
“A lot of operators haven’t thought the
implications through nearly well enough.”
Security With Connection-Oriented
Ethernet
• COE uses few protocols. IP & MPLS require many
• The more protocols used, MBH network is more susceptible to attacks
• Management VLANs isolated from user traffic
• Similar to DCC isolation from user traffic in Sonet networks
• COE has many security advantages over bridged solutions
• COE disables MAC address learning / flooding
• MAC address spoofing cannot occur
• MAC table overflow DOS attacks cannot occur
• COE disables vulnerable Layer 2 control protocols (L2CPs)
• Protocol-based DOS attacks cannot occur
COE is immune to IP-based attacks & popular L2-based attacks
The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“With any new technology, it’s always
the OAM that get’s left till last, and
IP/Ethernet backhaul is no different.”
“The OAM standards are not mature,
particularly as regards integration
with legacy TDM OAM systems.”
Sample Scenario:
Carrier Ethernet Services in Mobile Backhaul #1
End-to-end connectivity per
service is verified using
periodic 802.1ag CCM
messages between service
end points.
Tail site #1
Ethernet
Microwave
A
Tail site #2
B
Ethernet
Microwave
Packet or TDM
based fiber
aggregation
network
or leased lines
Ring site
#1
Ethernet
Microwave
Ethernet
Microwave
Wireless
Carrier Ethernet
Ring
Fiber site
RNC
Ethernet
Microwave
Ring site
#2
C
Ethernet
Microwave
Ring site
#3
Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #3
Sample Scenario:
Carrier Ethernet Services in Mobile Backhaul #2
Tail site #1
Ethernet
Microwave
A
Tail site #2
B
Ethernet
Microwave
Packet or TDM
based fiber
aggregation
network
or leased lines
Ring site
#1
Ethernet
Microwave
Ethernet
Microwave
Wireless
Carrier Ethernet
Ring
Fiber site
RNC
Ethernet
Microwave
Ring site
#2
C
Ethernet
Microwave
Ring site
#3
Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #3
Sample Scenario:
Carrier Ethernet Services in Mobile Backhaul #3
No alternate path available
for Service A.
Service connectivity failure
is reported by service end
points.
Tail site #1
Ethernet
Microwave
Ring site
#1
Ethernet
Microwave
Packet or TDM
based fiber
aggregation
network
or leased lines
A
A
Tail site #2
Service B is restored
using alternate path over
the ring.
No service connectivity
alarm is generated.
Ethernet
Microwave
Wireless
Carrier Ethernet
Ring
Ethernet
Microwave
Fiber site
RNC
Ethernet
Microwave
B
Ring site
#2
C
Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #3
Ethernet
Microwave
Ring site
#3
Services B & C now share the
same radio link resulting in
higher traffic load.
QoS is used to provide service
differentiation for high priority
and delay sensitive traffic.
The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.
“The vast majority of wholesale backhaul
providers and wireless operators
will design their packet backhaul
for 2G and 3G as well as LTE.”
“And since 90% of wireless traffic
will be 2G and 3G through 2014,
the LTE design requirements aren’t
critical in today’s design assumptions.”
2G/3G/4G Backhaul Services
over Ethernet/IP/MPLS
Mobile Operator E2E T1 & Ethernet Diagnostics
Mobile
Operator A
E2E SLA Monitoring and Diagnostics
4G eNB
Test Equip.
CT3/OC3
Transport Provider
MSC
4G G/W
2G/3G
ETH
Fixed
Wireless
T1/E1
GigE
4G eNB
Mobile
Operator B
Wholesale
Carrier Ethernet
MPLS
2G/3G
ETH
T1/E1
Test Equip.
4G eNB
CT3/OC3
Ethernet
Access Ring
(50ms)
MSC
4G G/W
Portal
GigE
NMS
Data VLANs – Carry BH traffic, OAM and test data.
Mgt VLAN – Management and SLA statistics
2G/3G
ETH
T1/E1