Enabling Ultra Low Latency Applications Over Ethernet Grant Kirkwood Chief Technology Officer Mzima Networks

Services are fast becoming packet-based Residential Digital broadcast IPTV, VoIP Internet video gaming Circuit-switched voice and broadcast video Enterprise Ethernet Services Virtual circuits IP PBX VoIP Dedicated connections T1/T3, FR, ATM Digital PBX Wireless Data optimized Video enabled 3G/4G/WiMax Voice optimized 2G network

Services are stream-based, not packet-based Digital broadcast IPTV, VoIP Internet video gaming Ethernet Services Virtual circuits IP PBX VoIP Data optimized Video enabled 3G/4G/WiMax

Services are stream-based, not packet-based Voice, video and other services – streams of data Internet Protocol (IP) relies on small packets, not streams of data Digital broadcast IPTV, VoIP Internet video gaming Ethernet Services Virtual circuits IP PBX VoIP Data optimized Video enabled 3G/4G/WiMax

IP Networks designed to carry “best effort” traffic Email, web browsing, “instant” messaging…. Applications are not time-sensitive. Networks designed to carry packet-based data are now being asked to carry streaming data

Perceived value has shifted from service provider to application provider Enterprise Consumer Penetration of Ethernet, fiber, collaboration, and interactive video Increased workforce mobility requiring seamless access Maturing virtualization, cloud-based applications & telepresence Maturity of multiservice offerings Increased mobile data penetration and improved ease of use Growing adoption of online video and Web 2.0 applications

New applications created daily Applications become more and more sensitive to network conditions QoS policies are being created to support these technologies An increasing number of QoS policies are creating challenges for service providers

Service provider realities Traffic keeps growing … 66 Tbps 2007 134 Tbps 2011 Consumer Enterprise 56 Tbps 101 Tbps 33 Tbps * * Source: McKinsey & Company 10 Tbps But revenue growth is slowing 2004 2006 2008 2010 10% 20% 30% 41% 3% 7% 13% -5% -3% -1% 4% Broadband Wireless Wireline ** ** Sources: Yankee Group and Pyramid Research

real-time services with How do we deliver real-time services with carrier-grade QoS?

QoS Model

Ethernet Performance Metrics Packet Loss Latency Jitter

Ethernet Performance Metrics Jitter Packet Loss Latency

Ethernet Performance Metrics Jitter Packet Loss Latency

Ethernet Performance Metrics Different applications are sensitive to different performance metrics

Class/Quality of Service QoS/CoS

QoS Model

Methods to separate traffic into different “buckets” or QoS policies QoS Model Methods to separate traffic into different “buckets” or QoS policies

“FIFO” is not intelligent ordering Order by priority QoS Model “FIFO” is not intelligent ordering Order by priority

Drop packets for applications not sensitive to packet loss QoS Model Non-stream services Drop packets for applications not sensitive to packet loss

QoS Model Size throughput to availability Limit/buffer traffic that won’t be impacted by policing

QoS Model

QoS Model

Policing vs Classifying Bandwidth policing is “dumb” Metering drops packets without discretion Congestion causes buffering (on routers) Buffering causes latency Each application sensitive to specific metrics Key is accurate classification

End to end QoS Schedule Transmit VoIP Gold Silver Best Effort Classification/Policing Schedule Transmit VoIP Gold Gold VoIP Silver Silver Gold VoIP Silver Best Effort

End to end QoS End-to-end QoS requires a technology that exists end-to-end Difficult to achieve in multi-vendor, multi-carrier or multi-technology networks New technologies are being developed to address this limitation

Mzima Case Study Problem: provide true Carrier Ethernet Differentiate product from other carriers Provide End-to-End QoS Carry carrier-grade Services Application-level granularity of QoS profiles Meet requirements of true Carrier Ethernet

Mzima Case Study

Mzima Case Study VLAN bridging or tunneling Layer 2 MPLS Layer 3 MPLS PBB-TE

PBB-TE Provider Backbone Bridge – Traffic Engineering End-to-End QoS Stringent performance metrics First Carrier Ethernet protocol not integrated into a layer 3 protocol (MPLS)

Y.1731 Performance Management PBB-TE Tunnel Performance Management Y.1731 Performance Management PRIMARY PBB-TE BCBs PBB-TE BEB PBB-TE BEB BACKUP PBB-TE with Y.1731 Performance Management Performance Management between Tunnel Endpoints Provides Service Independent Tunnel Monitoring Enhanced Scalability as 1,000’s of services may traverse the tunnel without the need to monitor every service Leverages 802.1ag frames for reduced overhead Multiple packets sent at 100ms interval to perform the test Frame Delay / Frame Delay Variation / Loss Measurement 2-way Delay Roundtrip Measurement 1-way Delay Measurement (requires common time base) Single Ended Frame-Loss (MEP to MEP)

Management Plane: Y.1731 Round trip delay/jitter and single ended frame loss (MEP to MEP) Non-Service Affecting Utilizes IEEE 802.1ag format frames for test packets Unicast messages to a specific MEP Multiple packets sent at 100ms interval to perform the test Delay, Jitter, and Frame Loss measurements Test results remain until the next test is run or until reboot of switch MIPs do not participate in delay/jitter/frame loss measurements MEP 12 MIP 802.1ag CCMs MEP 10 MEP 11 MIP MIP

Thank You