Transcript Optical Control Plane Standardization

OIF UNI/NNI Interoperability Demo
Overview


OIF Interoperability Goals
University of New Hampshire Testing
•
•


Interoperability topologies and test Methodology
UNH testing and outcomes
OFC’2003 Public Demo
Conclusions
OIF Interoperability Agreements:
Timeline
Decision to
focus initially
on UNI
May 2000
First UNI 1.0
draft ballot
UNI Interop
Event
UNI 1.0
approved, NNI
req. work starts
First NNI
proposals &
Interim NNI
NNI routing &
signaling
baseline spec.
Jan 2001
May/June
2001
Oct. 2001
Jan. 2002
Jul. 2002
UNI/NNI
Interop.
Mar. 2003
UNI/NNI Interoperability Goals



Proof of concept of the OIF (Inter-domain) E-NNI
concept
Validate the UNI/NNI interworking solution
Demonstrate maturity of UNI 1.0 Agreements
UNI and NNI: Definition and Placement
Switched Connection: initiated by clients over UNI interface
Soft Permanent Connection (SPC): initiated by
management agent
Optical Transport Network
Control
domain
UNI
NNI
UNI
Client Network
(IP, ATM, SDH)
NNI
Control
domain
NNI
Control
domain
UNI - User to Network Interface
NNI - Network to Network Interface
UNI
UNI/NNI Interoperability Trial Assumptions






Interoperability agreements are based on
• User Network Interface (UNI) 1.0 Signaling Specification
(IA, OIF2001.125.7)
• NNI Implementation Agreement Proposal for OFC 2003
(OIF2002.476)
Connections are established dynamically over
• an UNI initiated interface (switched connections) or
• an
EMS/NMS initiated interface (soft permanent
connections)
The test network topologies refer to clients and domains. Each
domain could represent either an individual TNE (Transport
Network Equipment) or a vendor domain containing multiple
TNE devices
Explicit routing is provided by the first metro or core node
initiating the network connection
Inter domain link dissemination
Testing focused on control plane only
Protocol Overview

Signaling
•
•
•
•

Routing
•
•
•

RSVP-TE
RFC 3209, 3471/3473
G-UNI object (esp. TNAs) as in UNI 1.0
Multi-session RSVP and SPCs as in oif2002.353
OSPF-TE
RFC 2328 and gmpls, sonet/sdh extensions
Domains and TNA reachability as in oif2002.023
Interoperability Goals
•
•
•
Interoperable multivendor signaling and routing
SPC and UNI connection setup
Domain abstraction
Relationship with GMPLS

GMPLS – Generalized MultiProtocol Label Switching
•
•
•
•

Current limitations
•
•

A set of IETF standards for Sub-IP Control Plane
Signaling: RSVP-TE and CR-LDP
Routing: OSPF-TE and ISIS
Link Management
Restricted to single routing area – limited scope
Limited support of hierarchy or abstraction
Future
•
Multi-area extensions
Relationship with ASON

ASON – Automatic Switched Optical Networks
•
•
•
•

Top-down design
•
•

A set of ITU-T standards for Optical control plane
G.8080 ASON architecture
G.7712, 7713, 7714, 7715 ASON requirements
G.7713.1/2/3 and G.7714.1 protocol specs
Carrier-based requirements
Multi-domain model
Alignment with NNI
•
•
Signaling aligned
Routing tbd
Interoperability Participating Companies












Alcatel (UNI-C, UNI-N, E-NNI, NMS/EMS)
Avici (UNI-C)
Ciena (UNI-N, E-NNI)
Data Connection (UNI-C, UNI-N, E-NNI, NMS/EMS)
Elematics (UNI-N, E-NNI)
Mahi Networks (UNI-N, E-NNI, NMS/EMS)
NEC (UNI-C, UNI-N, E-NNI)
Motorola/Netplane (UNI-C, UNI-N, E-NNI, NMS/EMS)
Nortel (UNI-N, E-NNI)
Sycamore (UNI-N, E-NNI, NMS/EMS)
Tellabs (UNI-N, E-NNI, NMS/EMS)
Tellium (UNI-N, E-NNI, NMS/EMS)
Test Methodology

Round robin approach - random vendor pairings
/grouping
•
•

create diversity and fairness
maximize partner/interoperability exposure by
exhaustive pairing
Testing Steps
•
•
•
Routing establishment among the network devices
Signaling are tested with UNI initiated and EMS/NMS
initiated connections
Network build out are based on results from daily test
progress
Interoperability Network
Alcatel2 (4)
(7)
(5)
(7)
(8)
DCL UNI-C
(3)
(3)
(10)
(14)
(10)
Nortel (9)
(8)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4) (3)
(2)
Tellabs (11)
Mahi (6)
(5)
(10)
(8)
(14)
(9)
Avici UNI-C
(3)
(9)
(8)
DCL (3)
(2)(9)
Alcatel Italia
(6)
Avici UNI-C
DCL UNI-C
(13)
Netplane
UNI-C
(7)
(9)
(12)
(14)
(13)
Alcatel1 (1)
(10)
(6)
(1)
Elematics (5)
(2)
(6)
(1)
(12)
Alcatel Italia
(2)
(1)
(1)
(11)
Tellium (12)
Netplane
UNI-C
Alcatel UNI-C
(5)
Netplane (8)
(7)(13)
Sycamore
(10)
(11)
(11)(12)(13)
NEC
Ciena (2)
(5)
Avici UNI-C
NEC UNI-C
Avici UNI-C
OFC’2003 Highlights

OFC 2003
• First time ever in the industry to successfully
demonstrate multi vendor UNI/NNI interoperability;
demonstrated set up and removal of 15 LSPs across
multi-domain network in real time;
•
•
•
Participated by 12 vendors with 15 types of product
of real network equipment or simulated nodes
Network topology with 10 network client devices and
over 30 simulated network elements in 12 domains
Signaling and routing information exchanges was
captured and updated in the real time with display
software to reflect dynamic connection
establishment
UNI/NNI Signaling Display
NNI Routing Display
Acknowledgements

UNI Interoperability Team
•

Florencia Dazzi, Andi Kosich, Steve Cortez, Todd Cline
OFC NNI Demo Spec Primary Authors (OIF2002.476)
•
•
•
Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Additional Contributors
Jonathan Sadler, Lyndon Ong, Erning Ye, Edward Harrison,
David Drysdale, Charles Chen, etc.
• Cary Wright
Test plans (OIF2003.018)
•

•


Strong support from UNH team at the closed door testing
Result Finding document (OIF 2003.035)
Lyndon Ong, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Dimitrios Pendarakis,
Jonathan Sadler, Erning Ye, Ben Mack-Crane
Signaling and routing displays developed by Clearpond
and Alcatel
•

Amy Wang (Avici) and Ben Schultz (UNH)
Interoperability Test Event at UNH
OFC2003 Interoperability Demo Participants
Conclusion


Summary
• Early planning and weekly technical team calls
identifies interop issues ahead of time
• Extensive test rotations at UNH closed door testing
• Commitment from all interop participants (9 day, 12 –
18hr/day)
Next Steps
•
Accelerate protocol development with
discussion on the Interoperability Finding
document (oif2003.035)
•
•
•
NNI spec
UNI 1.0 impact
Share ideas with Carrier WG on value added
features and applications