Transcript PE router - UCSF IT Governance

Enterprise
Architecture and
Infrastructure
Mark Day
Dept. of Radiology &
Biomedical Imaging
Tu Luu
Dell Healthcare Consulting
March 20, 2012
Progress Report for Committee on
Technology and Architecture
March 2012
SECTION HEADING
2012 Priority Projects
• MPLS / UCSF “One Network”
• DNS / DHCP
• Enterprise backups - Crash Plan pilot to be
presented at a future meeting
2
Brief Acronym Glossary
• MPLS – Multiprotocol label switching – the
underlying technology used to label and
segregate logical networks on shared physical
equipment
• VRF – Virtual Routing and Forwarding – the
separate network instances
• PE – Provider Edge (PE router)
• CE – Customer Edge (CE router)
• QoS – Quality of Service – tagging of network
traffic to allow different classes to be treated
according to different business rules
3
MPLS - Goals
• Highly redundant enterprise MPLS core shared
between Campus and Medical Center
• Capability to provision multiple segregated
networks on shared equipment.
• Communication between segregated networks
enforced by security policy
• End-to-End QoS
• Unified support for Multicast
• Ability to provision layer two between any two
points on the network (borderless data center)
4
MPLS Benefits
• Simplified and consolidated routing and
security infrastructure with ability to delegate
separate control
• Leverage MAN upgrade projects from both
Campus and Medical center
• Ability to logically group devices of similar use
regardless of physical location
• Reduce operational expenses through shared
infrastructure and simplified management
• High availability and capability to achieve subsecond convergence in the core
• Ability to meet Medical Center’s need for
resiliency, and campus research community’s
need for speed
5
Separate Distribution and Access
Infrastructure
6
Shared Distribution But Separate
Access
7
Shared Distribution and Access
8
Security Layer at Inter-VRF Routing
9
Project Status
• Meetings held regularly between MCIT and ITS
network staff, vendors, and interested
observers
• Medical Center proposal is to use
heterogeneous Cisco ASR 9000 class routers
for all PE Devices
• Campus would like to re-use Cisco Catalyst
6500 class routers due to budgetary constraints
• Cisco’s recommendation is to build MPLS core
with ASR equipment, but also state 6500
product line has necessary features
10
Equipment Comparison
• Case for ASR 9000 everywhere
– Equipment designed for aggregation services
– IOS XR software streamlines common service
provider operations compared to IOS
– Single software version and configuration to be used
everywhere
– Higher throughput – support 100 Gbps ports
• Case for Catalyst 6500
– Upgrades necessary for MPLS project modest
compared to replacement of routers
– Configuration is different, but not expected to change
much in core
– Equipment is from same vendor and contains
necessary feature set
– Additional speed of ASR not immediately needed
11
Immediate Next Steps
• Cisco to re-evaluate design and present options
for re-purposing 6500s
• Better define requirements to help in evaluation
of 6500 vs. ASR 9000 for PE routers at some
locations
• Medical Center and Campus to explore ‘creative’
options to make homogeneous ASR 9000
design more affordable
– Repurpose Catalyst 6500s in MC?
– OE funding available for a consolidated network?
– Additional pricing relief from Cisco?
• Evaluate best way to use 6500s in design
– As a PE router
– Only as CE routers (fewer PEs?)
12
Future Items
• Flesh out PE/CE design
• Define details of security model
• Agree on connection of MPLS core to internet
• Agree on schedule
• Decide on shared distribution / shared access
layers
• Governance aspect – threshold for defining
additional VRFs
• Define shared management responsibilities and
structure
• …
13
MPLS Network
15