RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
- To: "'Roy Bynum'" <RBYNUM/0004245935@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
- From: Andrew Smith <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:26:58 -0700
- Cc: IEEE HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Roy,
At the risk of waking some sleeping dogs, could I ask you to elaborate a
little on your statement:
'In addition to being less expensive, GbE over Native Data SONET DATS will
provide "subscription control" though "flow control" That "subscription
control" will prevent over-subscribing the WAN links, which is a big problem
for enterprise data network designers and architects.'
Andrew
****************************************************************
Andrew Smith tel: +1 (408) 579-2821
Extreme Networks fax: +1 (408) 579-3000
3585 Monroe St. http://www.extremenetworks.com
Santa Clara CA 95051-1450 em: andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
****************************************************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:RBYNUM/0004245935@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 4:12 PM
> To: bill.st.arnaud
> Cc: IEEE HSSG
> Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Internet IP will continue to be what the market requirements reflect.
> Slow restoration times are acceptable in that environment. The UUNet
> Long Haul GbE is part of what I am doing. I am the one that put the
> Long Haul Optical switching/Metro DWDM/SONET DATS evaluation of GbE
> together.
>
> As a bit irony, dependable GbE is turning out to be less expensive
> than undependable IP over TDM, ATM, or POS. Unless MPLS comes in a
> respectable price break, GbE over Native Data SONET DATS will still be
> less expensive.
>
> In addition to being less expensive, GbE over Native Data SONET DATS
> will provide "subscription control" though "flow control" That
> "subscription control" will prevent over-subscribing the WAN links,
> which is a big problem for enterprise data network designers and
> architects. Combine that with "priority queueing" and most of what
> MPLS was supposed to do has already been accomplished by GbE. You
> guys as IEEE have done a greater job than you knew.
>
> Dependable, high quality transport of Native data traffic such as GbE
> and 10GbE is probably going to be a different market, one that "best
> effort" is unacceptable to. If there is a market that provides the
> profit margin that will sustain 10GbE, it will not be the Internet as
> it is today.
>
> I do know that I have been given the requiement that carriers can not
> support a data service over long haul systems that does not provide
> "SONET like" functionality. The reason that I joined this study group
> is to provide that insight to the standards developers. If that is GbE
> or 10GbE over SONET then the issue is already resolved. All that
> remains is to determine what the LAN application requirements are,
> then the standard can be defined.
>
>
> Date: Mon May 17, 1999 3:23 pm CST
> Source-Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:17:51 -0400
> Fromm: bill.st.arnaud
> EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
> MBX: bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> TO: * ROY BYNUM / MCI ID: 424-5935
> Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
> Message-Id: 99051721234042/INTERNETGWDN1IG
> Source-Msg-Id:
> <NBBBJIMEPHPGCNGAHPMFIEIJELAA.bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>
> U-Importance: Normal
> U-X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
> U-X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> U-X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> U-X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>
> Roy:
>
> Again no disagreement. I don't think traditional SONET or
> ATM networks will
> disappear. The model we advocate is the same that Frontier is
> now deploying:
> IP/DWDM for best efforts, slow restoral traffic on one set of
> wavelengths,
> IP over SONET on another set of wavelengths for those
> services that need
> fast restoral and security of SONET, and IP over ATM over
> SONET on another
> set of wavelengths for fine grained QoS services.
>
> I agree with you that the driving force for GbE is cost. It makes a
> dramatic difference to the overall cost of the network.
>
> But I believe GbE can also make an equal dramatic difference on the
> transport side on medium, long haul links up to 1000 km. Your sister
> company UUNet has already demonstrated that on some long haul
> GbE systems.
> But I agree with you this type of link is probably only good for best
> efforts IP traffic.
>
> Bill
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Bill St Arnaud
> Director Network Projects
> CANARIE
> bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://tweetie.canarie.ca/~bstarn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:RBYNUM/0004245935@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 4:54 PM
> > To: bill.st.arnaud
> > Cc: IEEE HSSG
> > Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I have an IP base video conferencing demonstration
> application that is
> > full motion, full resolution. It uses MPEG2 compression and
> drives the
> > IP data at 7Mbs bidirectional. Part of the demonstration of the
> > reliability of GbE over optical and SONET Native Data
> systems is to do
> > a simulated fiber break. Over a normal IP network, there is a major
> > loss of data and thus video synchronization, sometimes the "call" is
> > even dropped. Over a Native data network, optical or SONET DATS, if
> > you blink, you miss the cut. It is that kind of traffic path
> > restoration quality that will be required by future, real time,
> > visual, and virtual applications. This is the quality of
> traffic path
> > restoration that needs to be implemented in Metro/MAN and WAN
> > environments. I do not believe that any one protocol and/or
> system can
> > do that and still be cost effective.
> >
> > Fromm looking at Cisco's DPT description, it looks a lot like a
> > SONET/SDH BLSR ring. In duplicating the alternate path coupled
> > architecture of SONET/SDH, Cisco could well duplicate the
> restoration
> > functionality of SONET/SDH. Although what value it will
> have over long
> > haul systems that are geared for very high bandwidth, I am not sure.
> > Within a LAN environment, that type of restoration is probably not
> > required. Within a Metro MAN environment, we have found that GbE
> > combined with optical path protected DWDM is very cost effective.
> > Cisco will have to come in at a VERY "cheep" cost in order
> to justify
> > the deployment of their systems. I expect to have some test systems
> > before too long. I am looking forward to finding out.
> >
> > The bottom line to this is cost. Preliminary evaluations are showing
> > that GbE already is so cost effective that it is less expensive to
> > have 10 GbE interfaces on a router than it is to have 4 OC48 POS
> > interfaces. Combine that with the less expensive interfaces on the
> > DWDM and SONET DATS equipment it becomes even more attractive. The
> > capital cost of IP over "Ethernet" or what I am now calling
> Native IP
> > is less expensive over a MAN or WAN environment than the
> existing TDM
> > WAN systems. 10GbE must compete in this environment. In order for it
> > to be deployed, it must provide high native data bandwidth,
> very cost
> > effectively with the specific service, maintenance, and operations
> > support that each very different environment requires.
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Mon May 17, 1999 1:07 pm CST
> > Source-Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:02:01 -0400
> > Fromm: bill.st.arnaud
> > EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
> > MBX: bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > TO: * ROY BYNUM / MCI ID: 424-5935
> > Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
> > Message-Id: 99051719074549/INTERNETGWDN3IG
> > Source-Msg-Id:
> <NBBBJIMEPHPGCNGAHPMFAEHPELAA.bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > U-Importance: Normal
> > U-X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
> > U-X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> > U-X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> > U-X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> >
> > Roy:
> >
> > I agree with you that for traditional telecommunications
> traffic SONET
> > restoral makes sense. For IP traffic it makes less sense.
> >
> > I can assure you we can already do 500 msec restoration on an IP
> > network by
> > simpling cranking down the I/F timers. Peter Lotheberg at Sprint
> > claims he
> > will be doing 300 msec, again by adhusting the OSPF and I/F
> timers. CISCO
> > claims, although we have to yet to test it, that they can
> do 50 msec with
> > their new DPT product. However, I tend to believe the
> CISCO claims as I
> > know most of the engineering team, mostly former SONET
> engineers from
> > Nortel.
> >
> > Juniper has also promised similar values, but as yet unproven.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Bill St Arnaud
> > Director Network Projects
> > CANARIE
> > bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://tweetie.canarie.ca/~bstarn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:RBYNUM/0004245935@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 12:01 AM
> > > To: bill.st.arnaud
> > > Cc: IEEE HSSG; Roy A. Bynum
> > > Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > I have had some of the "IP over DWDM" systems in a lab at
> MCI. They
> > > are not able to restore at SONET speeds because they do
> not have the
> > > tightly coupled framing and link maintenance that is
> incorporated in
> > > SONET. You would be surprised, as I was, at how much time
> was added to
> > > traffic restoration, in addition to the DWDM/Optical path
> restoration
> > > time. The fastest traffic restoration was by a "cut-through" GbE
> > > switch. An IP switch did not come close enough to even be
> considered
> > > as "SONET Like" even though it was running POS over DWDM.
> > >
> > > Long haul, carrier grade, optical networking requires the same
> > > traffic protection as well as the maintenance and
> operations support
> > > that currently exists in SONET. This is a different
> requirement from
> > > the IT industry that drove the existing 802.3 standards.
> > >
> > > What some of the other carriers are implementing is
> "transparent" data
> > > services. There was a recent magazine that showed that the AT&T,
> > > Sprint, and GTE offerings are actually ATM with LAN
> emulation. This
> > > is not the same as Native data exemplified by GbE.
> > >
> > > Don't count too much on the "promises" of IP level restoration. At
> > > present, 2 minutes path restoration is considered fast. Tightly
> > > coupling IP traffic restoration to layer two changes the
> nature of the
> > > routing protocols as they exist in a mesh or semi-mesh
> architecture.
> > > Other than MPLS, which is more for traffic bandwidth reservation,
> > > there have not been any proposals accepted that change
> the existing
> > > protocols. I may be mistaken, but I believe that PNNI Augmented
> > > Routing (PAR) did not make it beyond RFC Draft.
> > >
> > > I hope that this group continues to consider 10GbE as an
> independent
> > > protocol. The upper layer protocols, such as IP or IPX, will take
> > > care of themselves.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > >
> > > Date: Sun May 16, 1999 6:04 pm CST
> > > Source-Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:58:37 -0400
> > > Fromm: bill.st.arnaud
> > > EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
> > > MBX: bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > TO: * ROY BYNUM / MCI ID: 424-5935
> > > TO: IEEE HSSG
> > > EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
> > > MBX: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > > CC: "Roy A. Bynum"
> > > EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
> > > MBX: roy.bynum@xxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
> > > Message-Id: 99051700041309/INTERNETGWDN2IG
> > > Source-Msg-Id:
> <NBBBJIMEPHPGCNGAHPMFKEFIELAA.bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > U-Importance: Normal
> > > U-X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
> > > U-X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> > > U-X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> > > U-X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> > >
> > > Roy:
> > >
> > > Some excellent comments and observations.
> > >
> > > One comment I would make is that many carriers are moving away
> > from SONET
> > > for restoral and protection for IP traffic. CANARIE,
> Enron, Sprint,
> > > Froontier, Teleglobe and many others are building IP/DWDM
> networks where
> > > restoral is done at layer 3. MPLS (multi Protocol Label
> > Switching) is the
> > > most common implementation of supporting restoral and protection
> > > at layer 3.
> > > The vendors claim that we will be able to do restoral at the
> > same speed as
> > > SONET - 50 msec for up to 14 nodes.
> > >
> > > With layer 3 restoral, the type of transport protocol becomes
> > > less critical.
> > > Thus a simple and cost effective data protocol like GbE may be
> > all that is
> > > required.
> > >
> > > FFor more detailed information on layer 3 restoral please
> see the white
> > > papers on our web site at www.canet3.net
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > > Bill St Arnaud
> > > Director Network Projects
> > > CANARIE
> > > bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://tweetie.canarie.ca/~bstarn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > Roy Bynum
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 16, 1999 10:55 AM
> > > > To: IEEE HSSG
> > > > Cc: Roy A. Bynum
> > > > Subject: A telephony carrier industry perspective
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > As an introduction, my name is Roy Bynum. I work for
> MCI WorldCom in
> > > > the Data and Optical Network Technology Development
> organization. I am
> > > > late coming to this discussion because of a failure by
> the telephony
> > > > industry to recognize GbE as a defacto optical
> networking technology.
> > > > My charter was to work on a native optical networking
> standard for IP
> > > > services over carrier systems. I came across GbE by accident and
> > > > friends that work for data systems vendors.
> > > >
> > > > Over the last several months, I have been involved in evaluating
> > > > Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) as a viable data service. The
> outcome of that
> > > > is the following observations (I apologize for the
> length of this
> > > > memo.):
> > > >
> > > > 1. Depending on whom you talk to, 80% to 85% of all data
> > > > communications traffic in the world originates on
> "Ethernet" (802.3).
> > > > The reason for this is a combination of almost
> commodity prices on the
> > > > interfaces and very simple operational support
> requirements, which
> > > > translates into very low cost of ownership for the return on
> > investment.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Internet Protocol (IP) can operate on most any layer
> two protocol,
> > > > and does. However, (again depending on whom you talk
> to) up to 95% of
> > > > all IP communications traffic originates on Ethernet. This makes
> > > > Ethernet the defacto native data communications
> protocol for IP. The
> > > > reason for this is economics, as stated above.
> > > >
> > > > 3. GbE is following the precedence of Ethernet in that
> it is very cost
> > > > effective to deploy compared to other high bandwidth
> technologies. The
> > > > cost for GbE, per bandwidth, is anywhere from one forth
> to one tenth
> > > > of that of ATM or Packet Over SONET (POS).
> > > >
> > > > 4. Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) is
> being developed
> > > > and deployed in the Metropolitan carrier and other fiber optic
> > > > systems. These DWDM systems have up to 32 wavelengths, with path
> > > > protection for each. Metro DWDM uses single mode fiber
> (SMF) over
> > > > "short" distances, 200km or less. The economics for
> these systems is
> > > > turning out to be very favorable as well.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Another technology standard is being proposed in the
> telephony
> > > > industry that provides for transportation of native
> data, such as
> > > > Ethernet, directly over SONET facilities. Data Aware
> Transmission over
> > > > SONET (DATS) is the name of that proposal. DATS comes
> in two types,
> > > > transparent data, and Native data. The transparent data
> technology
> > > > puts ATM SAR switches directly on SONET transport
> nodes. Native data
> > > > technology puts Ethernet switches directly on SONET
> nodes. Native data
> > > > over SONET was demonstrated last year at Interopt and
> is also turning
> > > > out to have some economic benefits.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Telephony carrier data communications standards
> (WAN) today are
> > > > very different from Information Technology (IT) data
> communications
> > > > (LAN/MAN) standards. Telephony standards are circuit
> based and are
> > > > concerned with maintaining traffic connection path integrity and
> > > > quality. IT standards are based on connectionless data
> with a major
> > > > emphasis on cost of ownership. Telephony standards have
> been based on
> > > > Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) of voice rate (modulo 64kbs)
> > > > circuits. IT Ethernet standards have developed
> independently and are
> > > > based on native data requirements (modulo 10Mbs). Up
> until recently,
> > > > the two standards only came together at a
> router/gateway device that
> > > > removed the different standards at layer two, leaving
> the upper layer
> > > > (layer three and above) data to be communicated. It
> also means that
> > > > data traffic path restoration has been dealt with
> differently by the
> > > > two industries and standards. This is changing.
> > > >
> > > > 7. Telephony carriers have recognized that in a few
> years the massive
> > > > bulk of the traffic on their systems will be
> connectionless oriented
> > > > native data, not connection oriented voice. Some have
> also recognized
> > > > that the services on this traffic are abstracted from
> software on the
> > > > end systems, not the facilities based services that provides the
> > > > profits of today. This means that telephony carriers
> are looking for a
> > > > very cost-effective alternative to the TDM systems that
> they have been
> > > > using. Many are working, along with vendors on what
> they refer to as
> > > > "Optical Networking". This is a combination of very high DWDM
> > > > wavelength systems (up to 160 wavelengths) and optical
> switching which
> > > > provides for direct optical transport of data. I will
> not go into the
> > > > economics of what has been developed so far, but it is
> sufficient to
> > > > know that this work is being done.
> > > >
> > > > 8. SONET/SDH is a very resilient communications
> standard. It provides
> > > > for very tightly coupled traffic path restoration,
> which prevents the
> > > > unnecessary loss of data traffic connectivity. It
> provides for very
> > > > high bandwidth of channelized and concatenated traffic.
> It provides
> > > > for operational and maintenance support for 365 day x 24 hour
> > > > communications services. It is also very expensive, but
> justified in
> > > > the many customers, much circuit oriented, bulk traffic services
> > > > provided by the telephony carrier industry.
> > > >
> > > > 9. The loss of traffic path connectivity for high
> bandwidth, bulk data
> > > > communications has a much more massive impact than it
> does with lower
> > > > or moderate bandwidth communications. As more and more
> applications
> > > > utilize more and more data communications bandwidth, the loss of
> > > > traffic path connectivity will have a business,
> economic, and personal
> > > > impact that it did not have on lower or moderate bandwidth data
> > > > communications.
> > > >
> > > > 10. The nature of wide area networking protocols such
> as IP's OSPFF
> > > > changes when you move from a telephony circuit based
> WAN to a common
> > > > virtual circuit based, layer two switching/bridging WAN. The
> > > > implications of traffic restoration timers and timing
> requirements
> > > > change when moved from a non-broadcast, multiple circuit path
> > > > architecture to a broadcast domain, single segment
> architecture. This
> > > > is not very well understood at the present time. It
> will take a while
> > > > for WAN data communications engineers to work out these
> changes. This
> > > > will delay, for a short while, the deployment of GbE or
> 10GbE for
> > > > enterprise WAN systems.
> > > >
> > > > These observations should help provide some insight
> into the some of
> > > > the issues being discussed by the HSSG. Whatever is
> developed must be
> > > > economical for it to survive. 10GbE is approaching the
> bandwidth and
> > > > functionality requirements of the telephony carrier
> systems. Where it
> > > > is deployed will have a major impact on what the
> requirements for it
> > > > will be. Depending on where it is deployed, it needs to
> be traffic
> > > > path resilient and have operational and maintenance support
> > > > functionality directly within 10GbE. This does not mean
> that 10GbE
> > > > could not defined with two standards, one for LAN/MAN,
> and another
> > > > that encapsulates the LAN/MAN framing in a WAN
> transport standard. A
> > > > LAN standard does not have the requirements of a WAN
> standard. Many of
> > > > the WAN requirements can be incorporated in the Metro
> DWDM systems for
> > > > MAN services. This could simplify many of the issues of
> wavelength,
> > > > power, distance, synchronous or block coding, fiber
> type, and others.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that I can be of some help with the development
> of this or
> > > > these standards. It is very critical to the future
> economics of the
> > > > carrier data communications industry.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Roy Bynum roy.bynum@xxxxxxx
> > > > Sr. Engineer, Data and Optical Networking Technology Development
> > > > MCI WorldCom
> > > > (972) 729-7249
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>