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 ATM/IP ATM/IP Iub interface Iu PS interface Iu CS interface Data Core (SGSN/GGSN) Voice Core (MSC)
4G LTE Architecture
IP X2 interface IP S1 interface 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
Routed Non-Routed IP/MPLS Static PW/MPLS T-MPLS MPLS-TP PBB-TE VLAN Tag Switching IP/MPLS-Based COE IS-IS, OSPF, BGP, IP addressing, BFD MPLS LSP Eth PW Ethernet + PW + LSP BFD, RSVP-TE/LDP, FRR T-LDP/BFD, VCCV 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731
PW Eth (3) Data Plane Layers 1) Ethernet 2) Pseudowire (PW) 3) LSP (1) Control Plane Layer
•
IP MPLS-TP-based COE MPLS-TP LSP Eth PW Ethernet + PW + LSP PW Eth BFD, Protection Protocol BFD, VCCV 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731
Ethernet-based COE S-VLAN or PBB-TE Tunnel Eth Ethernet Eth G.8031, 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731
(3) Data Plane Layers 1) Ethernet 2) Pseudowire (PW) 3) LSP (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
RAN BS UNI RAN BS Carrier Ethernet Access Network ENNI Carrier Ethernet Aggregation Network UNI UNI Carrier Ethernet Access Network ENNI EVPL 1 EVPL 2 EVPL 3 EVPLAN RAN NC RAN BS
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 FMO Step 2: Begin Migration to EoF packet network. Existing services unaffected MSPP Sonet Packet Optical Networking Sonet Packet Optical Networking Sonet EoF TDM EoS DS1s Ethernet 2G/3G TDM COE DS1s Ethernet 2G/3G LTE TDM COE DS1s 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.
”
1
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 IP Node B ETH FE/GbE 2G BSC NTR IP-DSLAM Adaptive / IEEE 1588-2008 TDM ATM IMA SHDSL Node B 3G RNC eNode B TDM ETH Sync-E E1/T1 ATM TDM link S1 (ETH) aGW E1/T1 ATM IMA Physical-layer Sync E1/T1 TDM link Sync-Ethernet (G.8262) NTR – DSL/GPON Packet-based Sync Adaptive 1588-2008 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 • • COE disables vulnerable Layer 2 control protocols (L2CPs) • MAC table overflow DOS attacks cannot occur 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.
Ethernet Microwave
Tail site #1
A Ethernet Microwave
Ring site #1
Packet or TDM based fiber aggregation network or leased lines B Ethernet Microwave
Tail site #2
Ethernet Microwave Wireless Carrier Ethernet Ring
Fiber site
RNC
Ring site #2
Ethernet Microwave 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
Tail site #2
Ethernet Microwave A B Ethernet Microwave
Ring site #1
Wireless Carrier Ethernet Ring
Ring site #2
Ethernet Microwave C Ethernet Microwave
Ring site #3
Ethernet Microwave
Tail site #3
Ethernet Microwave
Fiber site
Packet or TDM based fiber aggregation network or leased lines RNC
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.
Ethernet Microwave
Tail site #1
A Ethernet Microwave
Ring site #1
A Packet or TDM based fiber aggregation network or leased lines Ethernet Microwave
Tail site #2
Ethernet Microwave Wireless Carrier Ethernet Ring
Fiber site
RNC
Service B is restored using alternate path over the ring.
No service connectivity alarm is generated.
Ring site #2
Ethernet Microwave B
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.
C Ethernet Microwave
Ring site #3
Ethernet Microwave
Tail site #3
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 A MSC Test Equip.
CT3/OC3 Mobile Operator E2E T1 & Ethernet Diagnostics E2E SLA Monitoring and Diagnostics Transport Provider Fixed Wireless 4G G/W GigE Mobile Operator B Test Equip.
Wholesale Carrier Ethernet MPLS MSC 4G G/W CT3/OC3 GigE
NMS Portal
Ethernet Access Ring (50ms) Data VLANs – Carry BH traffic, OAM and test data. Mgt VLAN – Management and SLA statistics ETH T1/E1
4G eNB 2G/3G
ETH T1/E1
4G eNB 2G/3G
ETH T1/E1
4G eNB 2G/3G