Multi-Protocol Label Switching Technology for Next Generation Internet
1999. 9. 2.
ETRI
Switching & Transmission Technology Research Laboratory
Chu-Hwan Yim
2APNOMS ‘99
Topics
Internet - Current Status
Current Internet - What is the Problem?
MPLS(Multi-Protocol Label Switching) Technology
3APNOMS ‘99
Internet Topology - USA
http://www.caida.org/Presentations/IEPG.9808/outline-1.html
A Picture designating the real connection state of USA’s internet.
4APNOMS ‘99
Internet Connection in Korea
5APNOMS ‘99
Telecom Service Forecasting in Korea
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Telephony
ISDN
PC Comm.
CATV
Internet
Source: ETRI TM - KII Strategy
Subscribers (Unit: 10,000)
6APNOMS ‘99
Internet Traffic (USA)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total VoiceIPVoIP
Source: ATM Year’98 AT&T
Terabyte/day
Rapid Growth of Internet Traffic
New Internet ServicesIP Voice, FaxIP-VPN
New TechnologyDWDM, ADSLTerabit Router
7APNOMS ‘99
Average Duration of Internet Calls
Source: ISS’97
4
13.4
28.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Internet Metered
Rate
InternetFlat Rate
Average Holding Time (min.)
Voice Call
8APNOMS ‘99
Internet Hop Distance
http://www.caida.org/Presentations/IEPG.9808/outline-1.html
- Average 15 Hops- the main cause of Internet Delay
9APNOMS ‘99
Internet Loss & Response Time(North America)
Average 6%
Average 280 ms
PacketLoss
ResponseTime
10APNOMS ‘99
Internet Loss & Response Time(Europe)
Average 8%
Average 400 ms
PacketLoss
ResponseTime
11APNOMS ‘99
Internet Loss & Response Time(Asia)
Average 18%
Average 590 ms
PacketLoss
ResponseTime
12APNOMS ‘99
VoIP(Voice over IP) Delay
InternetPSTN
(Modem)
PC-to-PC Architecture
InternetPSTN PSTN
GWGW
Gateway ArchitecturePSTN
(Modem)
100~210 msec
30~100* msec
70~110 msec
30~100* msec
170~500 msec
*Case of measured link delay at Chicago-California(2000 miles).
140~460 msec
Hard to reduce below 100msecof End-to-End delay.
Total delay is dominated by sound card and modem delay(100~430msec).
13APNOMS ‘99
VoIP Quality Characteristic
Loss
Delay
5%
20%
10%
100ms 150ms 400ms
TollQuality
Good
Potentiallyuseful
A
B
C
DN
IEEE Network Jan/Feb 1998
N: The present quality limitation of VoIPA: Case of insufficient buffer on the path (high loss, low delay)B,C: Case of suitable buffer on the pathD: Case of sufficient buffer on the path (low loss, high delay)
Required below 7% of loss and below 120msec of delayfor reasonable voice quality.
14APNOMS ‘99
Internet Networking Issues
QoS VPN High-Speed Low Cost
- Admission control- Traffic shaping- Scheduling
- CUG- Reliability- Network management- Billing
- Performance- Scalability
- Low Cost . Equipment . Operation
IP over ATM
IP over SDH/WDM
IP over ? (MPLS ?)
15APNOMS ‘99
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 lossTo support various types of traffic in the same network
FlowsTraffic engineering
16APNOMS ‘99
MPLS and INTERNET
Appropriate for Internet BackboneEasy 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
17APNOMS ‘99
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
18APNOMS ‘99
MPLS extends traditional IP in the following areas:
Simplified ForwardingBased on labels instead of longest prefix-match
Efficient Explicit RoutingRoute is specified once by source at path setup time
Traffic EngineeringSplit traffic load over multiple parallel or alternate routes
QoS RoutingSelect routes based upon QoS requirements
19APNOMS ‘99
MPLS Network Architecture
Label Edge Router (LER)
Label Edge Router (LER) MPLS Control Component MPLS Control Component
Label Switch Router (LSR)
Label Switch Router (LSR)
ATM Switch Fabric ATM Switch Fabric • Full-function Layer 3 routers• Label Binding based on FIB
• Switching on Label• Label swapping
LER
MPLS Domain
LER
20APNOMS ‘99
LER LSR LSR LER
ATM/FR/Ethernet
IProuting
IProuting
IProuting
IProuting
IProuting
IProuting
End System End System
MPLS Network
Routing at Layer 3, Forwarding at Layer 2
MPLS Domain
ATM/FR/Ethernet
ATM/FR/Ethernet(Switch or
Router)
ATM/FR/Ethernet(Switch or
Router)
ATM/FR/Ethernet(Switch or
Router)
ATM/FR/Ethernet(Switch or
Router)
21APNOMS ‘99
MPLS Components and Protocols
ATM, FR, Ethernet, SONET
LDP
Per-label Forwarding, Queuing, Multicasting
Label Information Base (LIB)TCP/IP
CR-LDPUnicastRouting
MulticastRouting(PIM)
TrafficEngineering
DifferentalServices
QoS(RSVP)
VirtualPrivate
Networks
Separation allows flexibility
Simple label-swapping paradigm
Multiple Control Planes can manipulate labels
Various applications can directly manipulate label binding
22APNOMS ‘99
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
23APNOMS ‘99
Premium Internet Access Service1.5~155Mbps, 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
MPLS Internet Premium Service : Super - ISP Service
24APNOMS ‘99
ISP Backbone ServiceNSP Service for national ISPsBackbone Access Service for regional ISPsCommon Int’l Gateway with Caching
Internet Traffic Exchange Service between ISPsRole of Network Access Point
Peering ServiceService agreement between ISP and NSPBi-, Multilateral peering
Additional Routing Server SupportPolicy-based routing, BB(Bandwidth Broker), RA(Routing Arbiter)
MPLS Internet Backbone Service : Super - NSP Service
25APNOMS ‘99
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
26APNOMS ‘99
Driving Force in IP Networking
Source: NGN’98
MPLSMultiservice
Network
Network Management
New IP Services
Traffic Management
Traffic Engineering
CoS, QoS andDifferential Services
Directory Service
Security
Intranets
Extranets
Intelligent DataNetwork
Scalable Multicast
Carrier-Class WAN Backbone with Quality IP
Top Related