Ralph Santitoro Director, Carrier Ethernet Market Development Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Cell Tower Backhaul Glenn Wellbrock Director, Optical Transport Network Architecture & Design

March 23, 2011 Ethernet over SONET (EoS) for Backhaul Why use it ? Many different implementations of Ethernet Transport Switched (Connectionless) Ethernet Ethernet over MPLS Ethernet over SONET Connection-Oriented Ethernet Each implementation varies significantly in: QoS Performance (packet latency, loss) Network Availability (protected / unprotected transport) Bandwidth Assurances (statistical versus guaranteed) Network Security (number of vulnerabilities) 2 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications. EoS used because it is the safe choice… It just works !

Connection-Oriented Ethernet

March 23, 2011 What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) ? The best of both worlds SONET/SDH Deterministic and precision QoS Bandwidth reserved per channel % Availability Highest Security (Layer 1 service) SONET/SDH Deterministic and precision QoS Bandwidth reserved per channel % Availability Highest Security (Layer 1 service) Connectionless Ethernet Layer 2 Aggregation Statistical Multiplexing Flexible Bandwidth Granularity Cost Effectiveness Connectionless Ethernet Layer 2 Aggregation Statistical Multiplexing Flexible Bandwidth Granularity Cost Effectiveness Connection-Oriented Ethernet COE provides the Flexibility and Scalability of Ethernet with the Performance, Reliability and Security of SONET/SDH Connection-Oriented Ethernet: A No-Nonsense Overview 4 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications. 4

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) FAQs What is COE ? Industry term defining a point-to-point implementation of Carrier Ethernet Tracked by industry analysts for past few years COE technologies have been around for about 10 years What’s the difference between COE and Carrier Ethernet ? COE is a high performance implementation of Carrier Ethernet Are COE implementations based on industry standards ? Implementations utilize MEF, IEEE, IETF and ITU-T standards Plus value added enhancements where standards are nascent What technologies can be used to implement COE? COE can be implemented using Ethernet or MPLS technologies Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

March 23, 2011 Different approaches to COE Technology selection depends on the problem you’re trying to solve 6 MPLS-centric COE Static PW T-MPLS Eth MPLS LSP PW Ethernet MPLS Pseudowire (PW) MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ethernet Eth VLAN Tag Switching PBT Ethernet-centric COE BMAC/BVID or C/SVID PBB-TE MPLS-TP Optimized for Multi-Service Transport Three OAM Layers Less optimal for Ethernet service transport Standards Under Development New standards being developed Augmenting MPLS standards Optimized for Ethernet Service Transport One OAM Layer Less optimal for multi-service transport Standardized Now Reuses existing Carrier Ethernet standards, e.g., Service OAM Ethernet Tag Switching Connection-Oriented Ethernet: A No-Nonsense Overview Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications Ethernet-centric COE optimized for Ethernet Transport MPLS-centric COE optimized for Multi-service Transport

March 23, 2011 COE designed to mimic SONET Makes Ethernet point-to-point Just like SONET circuits Ethernet Virtual Connections (EVCs) are provisioned across the network Just like SONET circuits Eliminates Ethernet control plane and many layer 2 control protocols Provide 50ms EVC path protection / restoration Just like SONET linear path protection Provide EVC fault management at demarcation points Just like DS1 circuit loopbacks Provides guaranteed bandwidth throughout the network Just like SONET circuits Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications 7

March 23, 2011 Why COE for MBH ? Makes Ethernet more like SONET which dominates MBH networks today Network operations procedures similar to SONET Smoother transition for SONET-trained operations personnel Highly scalable packet-centric technology Meets large scale MBH connectivity and aggregation requirements COE is supported over any Layer 1 technology Key Attributes Guaranteed Bandwidth (CIR) Consistent QoS Performance (Bounded Packet Delay, Packet Loss) High Security COE uses few protocols Fewer protocols = Less security vulnerabilities Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications 8

Focusing on Ethernet-centric Implementations of COE Connection-oriented Ethernet Attributes

March 23, 2011 COE Ecosystem 6 Attributes of Connection-Oriented Ethernet 10 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications. Standardized Services MEF E-Line and E-Access Security No Bridging: MAC DoS attacks mitigated No Bridging: MAC DoS attacks mitigated Completely Layer 2: No IP vulnerabilities Completely Layer 2: No IP vulnerabilities Deterministic QoS Lowest Packet Latency and Loss Bandwidth Resource Reservation Reliability / Availability 50ms EVC Protection UNI and ENNI Protection Ethernet OAM Link Fault Management EVC Fault Management Performance Monitoring Scalability Layer 2 Aggregation Statistical Multiplexing

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet Security No MAC Address Learning Vulnerabilities Immune to MAC Address spoofing of Network Elements (NE) Immune to MAC address table overflow DoS attacks in NEs No Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) Vulnerabilities Immune to STP Denial of Service (DoS) attacks Doesn’t use IP protocols Immune to IP protocol vulnerabilities and attacks Uses few Layer 2 protocols Fewer protocols = Fewer network security vulnerabilities Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications 11 COE provides security comparable to SONET networks

March 23, 2011 High Availability Ethernet Backhaul using COE Multi-level Fault Tolerance on Packet Optical Transport Systems  Port protection via Link Aggregation  Link Aggregation across cards  Card protection (active/standby or active/active)  Protected Power, Switch Fabric, etc.  50ms Network Protection via G.8031  Working / Protect EMS/NMS Instances  In-Service System Software Upgrades Port Card Network Element Management NE Software Network Service High Availability MBH Service  Ethernet Service OAM via 802.1ag and Y Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications.

March 23, 2011 COE versus Ethernet over SONET Key differences AttributeCOEEoS High Security  Deterministic (bounded) QoS (latency, loss)  50 ms protection/restoration  Ethernet Service OAM  N/A Guaranteed Bandwidth (CIR) through resource reservation  (CIR in 1Mbps increments)  (CIR in SONET 50Mbps increments) Oversubscribed Bandwidth (EIR)  (EIR in 1Mbps increments) N/A Service Multiplexing and Aggregation  N/A Efficient Bandwidth Utilization  N/A MEF-compliant Services EPL, EVPL, Access EPL, Access EVPL EPL 13 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

Ethernet over SONET challenges and how COE addresses them

March 23, 2011 Ethernet over SONET (EoS) Challenges using Multi-Service Provisioning Platforms (MSPPs) EoS doesn’t support aggregation EoS is a port-based transport with no service multiplexing Ethernet switch added for aggregation EoS bandwidth dictated by SONET Container Size EoS bandwidth available in only 50Mbps STS increments Other bandwidth rates waste SONET bandwidth 15 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications. SONET MSPP Eth MSPP Eth MSPP 50Mbps SONET VCG 40Mbps wasted 10Mbps EVC 50Mbps SONET VCG 30Mbps wasted 20Mbps EVC 50Mbps SONET VCG 30Mbps wasted 20Mbps EVC 150Mbps of SONET BW required for only 50Mbps of EVC BW MSC

March 23, 2011 COE over SONET on Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking Platforms (P-ONP) COE supports aggregation Aggregates EVCs onto higher speed Ethernet port COE aggregates EVCs onto same SONET VCG Can achieve 100% bandwidth utilization 16 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications. COE over SONET P-ONP Eth P-ONP Eth P-ONP 50Mbps 20Mbps EVC 10Mbps EVC COE significantly improves BW efficiency over existing SONET network MSC

March 23, 2011 Mobile Backhaul Evolution From SONET to Ethernet using COE 17 © Copyright 2010 Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. FMO Step 1: Add P-ONP with COE over SONET to increase BW efficiency FMO Step 1: Add P-ONP with COE over SONET to increase BW efficiency FMO Step 2: Begin Migration to Ethernet over Fiber (EoF) network. Existing services unaffected FMO Step 2: Begin Migration to Ethernet over Fiber (EoF) network. Existing services unaffected Cell tower  MSC 2G/3G 3G/LTE PMO: SONET T1s MSPP at MSC TDM SONET MSPP at Cell Site Ethernet EoS SONET Ethernet COE TDM 2G/3G 3G/LTE T1s P-ONP at MSC P-ONP at Cell Site Each Ethernet service requires a separate SONET VCG EoF Ethernet COE TDM 2G/3G 3G/LTE T1s SONET P-ONP at MSC P-ONP at Cell Site COE muxes Ethernet services onto same SONET VCG Connection-Oriented Ethernet: A No-Nonsense Overview Fujitsu’s FLASHWAVE Packet Optical Networking Platforms with COE facilitate MBH network migration of multi-generation 2G/3G/4G services

Cost Analysis

March 23, 2011 Cost Comparison  MSPP commons  MSPP GE client ports  ES client and trunk ports  ES commons  P-OTP SONET & Ethernet commons  P-OTP Ethernet trunk ports 19 FLASHWAVE 9500 PMOFMO MSPP One switch port per customer port Installed individually as customer UNIs added N x 1GbE N x 10GbE MSPP N x 1GE Analysis assumes SONET access costs are identical SONET Connections configured and installed once Customer UNIs provisioned remotely MSPP N x 1GE Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

March 23, 2011 Example Results Assumptions Leading switch vendor list pricing minus 60% “Typical” MSPP & FLASHWAVE 9500 pricing OpEx savings not shown E.g., savings due to moving from N x 1 GbE to 10 GbE handoffs High-level analysis Cost reduction higher for more incoming Ethernet ports Cost reduction is obtained by: Reducing common equipment costs in ES office Eliminating client GbE port cost between access network an ES device Cost reduction decreases as GE UNI port bandwidth increases But still results in substantial savings even at 1 Gbps of traffic per GbE UNI Mbps of traffic per GbE UNI 500 Mbps of traffic per GbE UNI Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

March 23, 2011 Verizon COE Proof of Concept Testing Side-by-side comparison for delivering Ethernet services Ethernet over SONET Connection-Oriented Ethernet Proof of concept tests using GA products Service performance Resiliency OAM Results: COE transport provides SONET equivalency in QoS & Performance with the added benefits of improved granularity and bandwidth utilization 21 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications