Transcript PowerPoint

PCECC Use cases update
draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases-03
Boris Khasanov (Huawei)
Andrey Elperin (Kyivstar)
Current status
•In updated version of the draft we covered the comments that were
given during TEAS-96 WG session (we addressed comments from
Dieter and others).
•Together with Aijun Wang we decided to divide work on PCE in native
IP network as separate draft (draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip)
•We added one new customer use case (Inter-AS TE will be presented
below)
•New version was published
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 2
The Use Cases for Using PCE as the
Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs:
PCECC and Inter-AS TE
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 3
Kyivstar network overview
•
Kyivstar is the largest mobile operator (more than 26M subs) and the second largest fixed broadband
provider (0.9M subs) in Ukraine
•
Full set of services for B2B subscribers: mobile services, FMC, L2/L3 VPNs, IP transit and so on
•
The largest mobile broadband coverage in Ukraine
•
IP/MPLS enabled POPs in more than 100 cities all over Ukraine (more cities will be available soon)
• We are operating our IP/MPLS networks in Inter-AS environment because after acquisition of one
our competitors in 2012, some parts of his network are still functioning separately
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 4
L2 VPNs implementation without PCECC
City 1
City 2
dot1q vlan
dot1q vlan
AS 1
AS 2
L2 Eth
NNI
AS 1
City 3
City 4
LSP Primary
Physical (links) :
L2 Ethernet NNI
MPLS link
L2 Eth
NNI
AS 2
• L2 VPN services are VERY popular in Ukraine
• To be able to provide L2 VPN services in InterAS environment there are some NNIs
between our primary and secondary ASes
• Totally we have 9 geographically distributed
NNIs and several thousands of L2 Inter-AS
VPNs
• There are two types of Inter-AS L2 VPNs –
intra-city and inter-city
• One of the main customer demands for intracity VPNs is to minimize RTT and to provide
protection for the service
• Taking into account geographical distribution
of NNIs it’s quite complicated for us to fulfill
this requirements using legacy Inter-AS L2
VPNs option B.
Common IP/MPLS core
Logical (services) :
Inter-AS E-Pipe 1 (Intra-city)
Inter-AS E-Pipe 2 (Inter-city)
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 5
PCECC implementation of Inter-AS transport LSP for L2VPN
PCECC/SDN Controller
P
CE
S/P
P-L
G
B
EP
PC
PC
E
P
BGP-L
S/PCE
P
PC
E
P
P
City 2
P
E
PC
PC
E
P
P
E
PC
AS 2
MPLS
NNI
PC
E
E
PC
AS 1
P
S/
P-L
BG
E
PC
P
City 1
P
BG
P-L
S/P
CE
AS 1
City 3
City 4
MPLS
NNI
AS 2
• PCECC should establish control plane (BGP-LS
and PCEP) connectivity with routers (BGP-LS
could be only with RRs) in both domains
• PCC and PCECC exchange PC Open messages
with PCECC capability
• PCECC calculates primary and backup
transport TEs following given constrains (i.e.
minimal delay for primary, path diversity for
the backup)
• PCECC add those LSPs and download labels to
the routers (PCCs) along the path in both
domains via PCEP (PCLabelUpd)
• PCECC updates LSP, router starts to use it as
Inter-AS transport LSP
Physical (links) :
MPLS link
Logical (control plane) :
BGP-LS/PCEP sessions
Common IP/MPLS core
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 6
LSPs after centralized path computation
City 1
City 2
Primary LSP
AS 1
AS 2
MPLS
NNI
AS 1
City 3
Backup LSP
MPLS
NNI
AS 2
• After LSPs calculation and provisioning by
PCECC, we will have E2E MPLS-enabled InterAS transport for L2VPN services
• L2VPN traffic will flow by optimal path. In
case of primary LSP failure, traffic will switch
to backup LSP. A lot of different constrains
may be considered during backup LSP path
calculation
City 4
Backup LSP
Primary LSP
Physical (links) :
MPLS link
Common IP/MPLS core
Logical (services) :
E-Pipe 1 (Intra-city)
E-Pipe 2 (Inter-city)
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 7
Next steps
We think that draft is stable and could be considered for WG adoption poll
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 8
Thank you!
© Kyivstar, 2016
| 9