1. 1© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Service Provider QoS Providing e2e Guarantees Vijay Krishnamoorthy Cisco IOS Technologies Division April 2001

2. 2© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Agenda What is QoS? QoS Models Differentiated Services - DiffServ DiffServ in MPLS Networks MPLS Traffic Engineering DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) DS-TE Solutions QoS Management Summary

3. 3© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. What is Quality of Service? ARM Your Network! “ ” The Pragmatic Answer: QoS is Advanced Resource Management The Technical Answer: The Resources!! Set of techniques to manage: Delay Delay Variation (Jitter) Bandwidth Packet Loss

4. 4© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. The Value Proposition! Offer Any to Any Differentiated Services for Profitability: Premium-Class Service – (E.g.: VoIP, Multicast Stock Quotes, etc.) Business-Class Service – (E.g.: SAP,Oracle,Citrix, etc.) Best-Effort Service – (E.g.: Database Replication, Backups, etc.) Icing on the profitability cake  Point-to-Point QoS Guarantees: P2P guarantees for Voice over IP trunks. P2P guarantees for highly critical data traffic. Revenue in addition to Basic MPLS VPN & Internet Service!

5. 5© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Today’s Basic Internet Access Basic Internet Access @ 768 kpbs………… Managed Internet Access Access prioritization by user, group………... Priority access during times of congestion… Usage reporting………………………………. Business Applications (ASP) Priority to each customer’s requirements….. Streaming Services Blocking delivery of undesirable services…. VPN Services Low cost, software based …………………… Monthly Revenue/Margin $500/$50 $75/$60 $100/$90 $50/$40 $150/$100 TOTAL MARGIN POTENTIAL: $460/customer = +820% Source: Session M16C, SuperNet 2001 Service Provider Revenue/Margin Potential

6. 6© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. “ Money and sex, storage and bandwidth: only too much is ever enough ” Arno Penzias - Former Head of Bell Labs, and Nobel prizewinner “ The worldwide services market is about $1 trillion US. By 2005 it will be around $5-7 trillion. Look for growth in new services. ” Vinod Khosola - Kleiner Perkins Ventures ”According to CIMI Corporation, by 2010, 67% of transactions will be on value networks, not the Internet” “ ” But…but… Bandwidth…...

7. 7© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. So, What Will Fill Up The Pipe? Source: Internet2 QBone WG

8. 8© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. QoS Models 8© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

9. 9 The IP QoS Pendulum No state Best Effort Per-flow state IntServ / RSVP Aggregated state DiffServ 1. The original IP service 2. First efforts at IP QoS 3. Seeking simplicity and scale Time 4. Bandwidth Optimization & e2e SLAs ((IntServ+DiffServ+ Traffic Engineering))

10. 10© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. PROVISIONING & MONITORING VPNs Multimedia Video Conference, Collaborative Computing Multimedia Video Conference, Collaborative Computing Mission Critical Services Mission Critical Services VoIP Hybrid MPLS DiffServ IntServ Signaling Techniques (RSVP, DSCP*, ATM (UNI/NNI)) Link Efficiency Mechanisms (Compression, Fragmentation) Congestion Avoidance Techniques (WRED) Congestion Management Techniques (WFQ, CBWFQ, LLQ) Classification & Marking Techniques (DSCP, MPLS EXP, NBAR, etc.) Frame Relay Frame Relay PPP HDLC PPP HDLCSDLC ATM, POS FE,Gig.E 10GE FE,Gig.E 10GE Wireless Fixed,Mobile Wireless Fixed,Mobile BroadBand Cable,xDSL BroadBand Cable,xDSL POLICY-BASED NETWORKING Traffic Conditioners (Policing, Shaping) The Cisco QoS Framework

11. 11© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Differentiated Services Architecture - DiffServ 11© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

12. 12© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Differentiated Services The IETF DiffServ Model Use 6 bits in IP header to sort traffic into “Behavior Aggregates”…AKA Classes! Defines a number of “Per Hop Behaviors - PHBs” Two-Ingredient Recipe: Condition the Traffic at the Edges Invoke the PHBs in the Core Use PHBs to Construct Services such as Virtual Leased Line!

13. 13© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Version Length Version LengthToS 1 Byte ToS Len Standard IPV4: Bits 0-2 Called IP Precedence (Three MSB) (DiffServ Uses Six ToS bits…: Bits 0-5, with Two Reserved) Layer 3 IPV4 ID offset TTL Proto FCS IP-SA IP-DA Data Referred to as Packet Classification or Coloring Layer 3 Mechanisms Provide End-to-End Classification The Hook for IPv4 Classification

14. 14© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. IPv4 ToS vs. DS-Field

15. 15© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Defined PHBs Expedited Forwarding (EF): RFC2598 dedicated low delay queue Comparable to Guaranteed B/W in IntServ Assured Forwarding (AF): RFC2597 4 queues  3 drop preferences Comparable to Controlled Load in IntServ Class Selector: Compat. with IP Prec Default (best effort)

16. 16© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. AF PHB Group Definition 4 independently-forwarded AF classes Within each AF class, 3 levels of drop priority! This is very useful to protect conforming to a purchased, guarantee rate, while increasing chances of packets exceeding contracted rate being dropped if congestion is experienced in the core. AF Class 1: 001dd0 AF Class 2: 010dd0 AF Class 3: 011dd0 AF Class 4: 100dd0 Eg. AF12 = Class 1, Drop 2, thus “001100” dd = drop preference

17. 17© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. The DiffServ Traffic Conditioner Classifier: selects a packet in a traffic stream based on the content of some portion of the packet header Meter: checks compliance to traffic parameters (e.g., Token Bucket) and passes result to marker and shaper/dropper to trigger particular action for in/out-of-profile packets Marker: Writes/rewrites the DSCP value Shaper: delay some packets for them to be compliant with the profile

18. 18© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. The DiffServ Architecture (RFC-2475)

19. 19© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco IOS DiffServ Cisco IOS 12.1(5)T+ & 12.2+ are fully compliant with all the Core DiffServ RFCs (RFCs: 2474,2475,2597,2598) Compliant Platforms*: C36xx, C72xx, C75xx - Now More Platforms in the Near Future...

20. 20© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. An Application Note 20© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

21. 21© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Source Predictability TCP will keep at most a certain amount of traffic in flight We say it is “elastic”—rate is proportional to latency Voice will send only and exactly as fast as the coding algorithm permits (Also Video to an extent) We say it is “inelastic”

22. 22© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. TCP Flow Statistics >90% of sessions have ten packets each way or less Transaction mode (mail, small web page) >80% of all TCP traffic results from <10% of the sessions, in high rate bursts It is these that we worry about managing

23. 23© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Behavior of a High-Throughput / Bulk-Transfer TCP Session 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 10 20 3040 50 Slow Start Exponential Growth Congestion Avoidance Phase Linear Growth

24. 24© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. VoIP Delay Budget Cumulative Transmission Path Delay Time (msec) 00100100200200300300400400 Satellite Quality Fax Relay, Broadcast High Quality Delay Target (max) 500500600600700700800800 ITU’s G.114 Recommendation = 0–150 msec 1-Way Delay

25. 25© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Application QoS Requirements Voice FTP ERP and Mission-Critical Bandwidth Low to Moderate Moderate to High Low Random Drop Sensitive Low High Moderate To High Delay Sensitive High Low Low to Moderate Jitter Sensitive High Low Moderate

26. 26© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ & MPLS 26© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

27. 27© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ Scalability via Aggregation 1000’s of flows Diff-Serv: Aggregated Processing in Core Scheduling/Dropping (PHB) based on DSCP Diff-Serv: Aggregated Processing in Core Scheduling/Dropping (PHB) based on DSCP Diff-Serv: Aggregation on Edge Many flows associated with a Class (marked with DSCP) Diff-Serv: Aggregation on Edge Many flows associated with a Class (marked with DSCP) DiffServ scalability comes from: - aggregation of traffic on Edge - processing of Aggregate only in Core

28. 28© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. MPLS Scalability via Aggregation 1000’s of flows MPLS: Aggregated Processing in Core Forwarding based on label MPLS: Aggregated Processing in Core Forwarding based on label MPLS: Aggregation on Edge Many flows associated with a Forwarding Equivalent Class (marked with label) MPLS: Aggregation on Edge Many flows associated with a Forwarding Equivalent Class (marked with label) MPLS scalability comes from: - aggregation of traffic on Edge - processing of Aggregate only in Core

29. 29© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. MPLS & DiffServ - The Perfect Match! 1000’s of flows MPLS: flows associated with FEC, mapped into one label MPLS: Switching based on Label DS: Scheduling/Dropping based on DSCP DS: flows associated with Class, mapped to DSCP Because of same scalability goals, both models do: - aggregation of traffic on Edge - processing of Aggregate only in Core

30. 30© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DSCP field is not directly visible to MPLS Label Switch Routers (they forward based on MPLS Header) Information on DiffServ must be made visible to LSR in MPLS Header (using EXP field / Label) 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | EXP |S| TTL | DSCP IPv4 Packet MPLS Header Non-MPLS Diff-Serv Domain MPLS Diff-Serv Domain DSCP MPLS - So What’s New? The Shim Header!!

31. 31© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ o MPLS : “Coloring” MPLS Frames This describes how “DiffServ” information is conveyed to LSRs in MPLS Header Two methods: – E-LSP {{ Cisco IOS 12.1(5)T, 12.0(11)ST }} “Queue” inferred from Label and EXP field “Drop priority” inferred from label and EXP field – L-LSP {{ Planned, once an RFC }} “Queue” inferred exclusively from Label “Drop priority” inferred from EXP field

32. 32© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. E-LSPs can be established by various label binding protocols (LDP or RSVP)…no new Signalling Needed. Example above illustrates support of EF and AF1 on a single E- LSP (Note: This is the plain old LSP established for MPLS Switching) Note: EF and AF1 packets travel on single LSP (single label) but are enqueued in different queues (different EXP values) Queue & Drop Precedence is selected based on EXP E-LSP LSR LDP/RSVP EF AF1 The E-LSP Story...

33. 33© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. L-LSPs can be established by various label binding protocols (LDP or RSVP)…EXTENSIONS REQUIRED! Example above illustrates support of EF and AF1 on separate L-LSPs – EF and AF1 packets travel on separate LSPs and are enqueued in different queues (different label values) – Queue selected based on Label, Drop Precedence Selected with Optional EXP field. L-LSPs LSR LDP/RSVP L- LSP Example (Tomorrow) Supporting 64 Classes!

34. 34© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco DiffServ o MPLS Cisco IOS 12.1(5)T C72xx, C75xx, C12xxx [12.0(ST)] MPLS QoS Enhancements* Operate exclusively on EXP bits Leave the IP ToS Byte Untouched QoS is QoS! – Some New Stuff, But Same Goals! – Service the Applications!!

35. 35© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. The QoS is In the Details! So, What’s Changed?: Can Classify based on the EXP bits (MQC/CAR) Can Mark the EXP bits (MQC/Policer/CAR) WRED & WFQ & MDRR act on EXP bits (instead of Precedence/DSCP)

36. 36© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. A Note on CoS Translation… (Preservation of Classification e2e) Developed as flexible translation: CoS = {IP Prec., DSCP, EXP, ATM CLP, F.Relay DE-Bit, 802.1Q/p} CoS translation = Translation from Any (Except ATM CLP) to Any Extensions to the “Modular QoS CLI”: 1) Extended “matches” for “class-maps”: match fr-de match cos match ip precedence n match ip dscp n match mpls exp 2) Extended “sets” for “policy-maps”: set atm-clp set fr-de set cos set ip precedence n set ip dscp n set mpls exp n

37. 37© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. IP MQC CoS Translation: An Example class-map inputc match ip prec p policy-map inputp class inputc set qos-group q Incoming interface> service-policy input inputp LSP LSR LDP MPLS Incoming IP packets with Prec=p to be transmitted with EXP=e class-map outputc match qos-group q policy-map outputp class outputc set mpls exp e Outgoing interface> service policy output outputp

38. 38© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. MPLS Traffic Engineering 38© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

39. 39© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. The “Fish” Problem R8 R1 R5 R2 R3 R4 R7R6 IP Uses Shortest Path Destination-Based Routing Shortest Path May Not Be the only path Alternate Paths May Be under-Utilized while the shortest Path Is over-Utilized

40. 40© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. An LSP Tunnel (A Constrained MPLS Label Switched Path) R8 R1 R5 R2 R3 R4 R7R6 Labels, Like VCIs (ATM) Can Be Used to Establish Virtual Circuits Normal Route R1->R2->R3->R4->R5 Tunnel: R1->R2->R6->R7->R4

41. 41© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. LSP Tunnel Setup (a.k.a Traffic Engineering [TE] Tunnel) 22 49 17 R8 R2 R6 R3 R4 R7 R1 R5 R9 Setup: Path (R1->R2->R6->R7->R4->R9) Tunnel ID 5, Path ID 1 Reply: Communicates Labels and Label Operations Reserves Bandwidth on Each Link Reply: Communicates Labels and Label Operations Reserves Bandwidth on Each Link Pop 32

42. 42© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Real-World MPLS TE Use! POP4 POP POP2 POP1 WAN area Find route & set-up tunnel for 10 Mb/s from POP2 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 20 Mb/s from POP1 to POP4

43. 43© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. MPLS TE & QoS – The Relationship MPLS TE designed as tool to improve backbone efficiency independently of core QoS techniques: MPLS TE compute routes for aggregates across all PHBs. A Single Chunk of Bandwidth requested for the Tunnel MPLS TE performs admission control over a global b/w pool. Un-aware of bandwidth allocated to each Class / PHB MPLS TE and MPLS DiffServ: Can run simultaneously in a network. Can provide their own individual benefits TE distributes aggregate load DiffServ provides differentiation) Are unaware of each other

44. 44© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering 44© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

45. 45© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Delay/Load Trade-Off Percentage Priority Traffic Delay 0% 100%  % Voice Target Data Premium Target Good Best-Effort Target If I can keep EF traffic <  %, I will keep EF delay under M1 ms If I can keep AF1 traffic <  %, I will keep AF1 delay under M2 ms  %

46. 46© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Motivation for DiffServ-Aware TE (DS-TE) Thus, with DiffServ, there are additional constraints to ensure the QoS of each class: - Good EF behavior requires that aggregate EF traffic is less than small  % of link - Good AF behaviors requires that aggregate AF traffic is less than reasonable  % of link =>Cannot be enforced by current Aggregate TE => Requires DiffServ-Aware TE - Constraint Based Routing per Class with different bandwidth constraints - Admission Control per Class over different bandwidth pools (ie bandwidth allocated to class queue)

47. 47© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. The Trouble With DiffServ (We Want it All, We Want it Now!) As currently formulated, DiffServ is strong on simplicity and weak on guarantees Virtual Leased Line using EF is quite firm, but how much can be deployed? No topology-aware admission control mechanism Example: How do I reject the “last straw” VoIP TRUNK that will degrade service of calls & trunks currently active?

48. 48© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ-Aware TE: Protocol Components Current IGP(*) extensions for TE: advertise “unreserved TE bandwidth” (at each preemption level) Proposed IGP(*) extensions for DS aware TE: Class-Types= group of DiffServ classes sharing the same bandwidth constraint (e.g. AF1x and AF2x) advertise “unreserved TE bandwidth” (at each preemption level) for each Class-Type (*) OSPF and ISIS

49. 49© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ-Aware TE: Protocol Components Current LSP-signalling (*) extensions for TE: at LSP establishment signal TE tunnel parameters (label, explicit route, affinity, preemption,…) Proposed LSP-signalling (*) extensions for DS aware TE: also signal the Class-Type perform Class-Type aware CAC (*) RSVP-TE and CR-LDP

50. 50© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ - Aware TE: Protocol Components Current Constraint Based Routing for TE: compute a path such that on every link : - there is sufficient “unreserved TE bandwidth” Proposed Constraint Based Routing for DS aware TE: same CBR algorithm but satisfy bandwidth constraint over the “unreserved bandwidth for the relevant Class-Type” (instead of aggregate TE bandwidth)

51. 51© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DS-TE Standardization Status Standardization effort initiated 2 IETFs ago Internet Drafts submitted at Dec 2000 IETF: draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-reqts-01.txt draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-00.txt draft-lefaucheur-diff-te-ospf-00.txt draft-lefaucheur-diff-te-isis-00.txt

52. 52© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Aggregate TE in a Best Effort Network POP4 POP POP2 POP1 WAN area Find route & set-up tunnel for 20 Mb/s from POP1 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 10 Mb/s from POP2 to POP4

53. 53© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Aggregate TE in a DiffServ Network POP4 POP POP2 POP1 WAN area Find route & set-up tunnel for 20 Mb/s (aggregate) from POP1 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 10 Mb/s (aggregate) from POP2 to POP4

54. 54© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering POP4 POP POP2 POP1 WAN area Find route & set-up tunnel for 5 Mb/s of EF from POP1 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 3 Mb/s of EF from POP2 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 15 Mb/s of BE from POP1 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 7 Mb/s of BE from POP2 to POP4

55. 55© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DS-TE Applications Guaranteed Bandwidth Services 55© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

56. 56© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering POP4 POP POP2 POP1 WAN area Find route & set-up tunnel for 5 Mb/s of EF from POP1 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 3 Mb/s of EF from POP2 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 15 Mb/s of BE from POP1 to POP4 Find route & set-up tunnel for 7 Mb/s of BE from POP2 to POP4

57. 57© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. MPLS Guaranteed Bandwidth Combining MPLS DiffServ & DS-TE to achieve strict point-to-point QoS guarantees A new “sweet-spot” on the QoS Spectrum No state Best effort Per-flow state RSVP v1/ Intserv Aggregated state DiffServ MPLS DiffServ + MPLS DS-TE Aggregated State (DiffServ) Aggregate Admission Control (DS-TE) Aggregate Constraint Based Routing (DS-TE) MPLS guaranteed bandwidth

58. 58© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. MPLS Guaranteed Bandwidth “Guaranteed QoS” is a unidirectional point-to-point bandwidth guarantee from Site-Sx to Site-Sy: Point-to- Point “Site” may include a single host, a “pooling point”, etc. 10.2 10.1 11.5 11.6 CE N1 Mb/s guarantee N2 Mb/s guarantee

59. 59© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. MPLS Guaranteed Bandwidth “Guaranteed QoS” is a unidirectional point-to-point bandwidth guarantee from Site-Sx to Site-Sy “Site” may include a single host, a “pooling point”, etc. 10.2 10.1 11.5 11.6 CE N1 Mb/s guarantee N2 Mb/s guarantee DS-TE LSP for AF or EF, used to transport guaranteed bandwidth traffic edge-to-edge

60. 60© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. DS-TE Applications Voice over MPLS Trunks 60© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

61. 61© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Target Applications Voice Trunking Solution 1: Toll Bypass with Voice Network Solution 2: Toll Bypass with Voice/Data Converged Network Solution 3: Toll Bypass with VoIP Network Virtual Leased Lines Solution 4: Virtual Leased Lines – Serial Links Solution 5: Virtual Leased Lines – Frame Relay Solution 6: Virtual Leased Lines – ATM

62. 62© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Solution 1: Toll Bypass with Voice Network PE PBX with Packet Interface PSTN – Traditional TDM Network Traditional Telephony Toll Bypass QoS on PE Router Solution Requirements Mapping Traffic to Tunnels Diffserv Aware Traffic Engineering QoS on Core Routers PEGB Tunnel + + =  Class 5 legacy switches

63. 63© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Solution 2: Toll Bypass with Voice/Data Converged Network PE CE PSTN – Traditional TDM Network Enterprise LAN Toll Bypass QoS on PE Router Solution Requirements Mapping Traffic to Tunnels Diffserv Aware Traffic Engineering QoS on Core Routers CE QoS on CE Router PEGB Tunnel PBX with Circuit Emulation Interface + ++ =  Class 5 legacy switches

64. 64© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Solution 3: Toll Bypass with VoIP Network PE CE IP Phone PSTN – Traditional TDM Network Enterprise LAN Toll Bypass QoS on PE Router Solution Requirements Mapping Traffic to Tunnels Diffserv Aware Traffic Engineering QoS on Core Routers CE QoS on CE Router Multi- Service Switch IP Phone PEGB Tunnel + + +=  Class 5 legacy switches

65. 65© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Voice Trunking - Summary

66. 66© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Solution 4: Virtual Leased Lines – Serial Links PE MPLS Backbone Serial IP or PPP or HDLC over MPLS PE DS-TE Tunnel CE Serial IP or PPP or HDLC over MPLS Serial Link Virtual Leased Line (DS-TE + QoS)

67. 67© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Solution 5: Virtual Leased Lines – FR Networks PE MPLS Backbone PE Frame Relay CPE Router, FRAD Frame Relay CPE Router, FRAD Frame Relay DLCI Any Transport over MPLS (AToM) Tunnel DS-TE Tunnel Virtual Leased Line (DS-TE + QoS)

68. 68© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Solution 6: Virtual Leased Lines – ATM Networks PE MPLS Backbone PE ATM CPE Router ATM CPE Router ATM Virtual Circuits Any Transport over MPLS (AToM) Tunnel DS-TE Tunnel Virtual Leased Line (DS-TE + QoS)

69. 69© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. QoS Management 69© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

70. 70© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Network service level verification CW2000 SMS Complete Service Management CONFIGUREVERIFICATION TROUBLESHOOT Qos network policy configuration Per-device traffic class monitoring Per-device traffic class configuration Device Network Wide XML Service level troubleshooting XML QDM,... QPM CW2000 RWAN (IPM) CW2000 RWAN (IPM)

71. 71© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Data Collector Aggregator ME1100 http interface Data Collector Aggregator ME1100 http interface Server Store CW2000 SMS SLM Server http XML The Service Level Management Architecture Local Store Third Party Application Third Party Application Third Party Application Local Store SNMP SDK HTTP Interface http XML http http XML A proven architecture

72. 72© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Summary 72© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.

73. 73© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. How to Build A “Point-to-Cloud” Service? Scenario 1 : – Constrained Access – Unconstrained Backbone MPLS VPN DiffServ o IP Best-Effort o MPLS

74. 74© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. How to Build A “Point-to-Cloud” Service? Scenario 2 : – Constrained Access – Constrained Backbone MPLS VPN DiffServ o IP DiffServ o MPLS

75. 75© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. How to Build A “Point-to-Cloud” Service? Scenario 3 : – Constrained Access – Constrained Backbone – Optimised Backbone (Traffic Eng.) DiffServ o IP MPLS VPN DiffServ o MPLS, GB-TE

76. 76 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc.