1. SERENATE WP3 Equipment Study

2. WP3 (Equipment) Mission A study of into the availability and characteristics of equipment for next-generation networks More specifically, to look at developments of routing, switching and transmission equipment over the next 2-5 years Efforts concentrated on addressing: higher capacities (i.e. 40+Gbps) optical technology for switching and transmission developments in network management and the control plane impact on network architectures

3. Work Plan Bi-lateral meetings with 11 equipment vendors and 2 university research labs during November and December 2002 Equipment vendors: Alcatel, Calient, Ciena, Cisco, Corvis, Juniper, Lucent, Nortel, Photonex, Tellium, Wavium* e.g. cross-section of players from the well established to the newly started-up University research labs: University of Essex (Prof Mike O’Mahoney) University of Ghent (Prof Piet Demeester) Attempted to contact a number of other vendors who either did not respond or declined to take part

4. Questionnaire A confidential questionnaire was developed to: set the context of the bi-lateral meetings for the vendors (questionnaire was sent to them in advance) provide some guidance for discussion during the meetings Questionnaire addressed the following broad topics: 40+Gbps capabilities (drivers & technical difficulties) Device scalability New control plane paradigms switching and transmission developments

5. The Team DANTE (leader) TERENA NREN Consultants from: CESNET PSNC HEANet

6. Routing developments Scalable to terabits, in multi-chassis platforms require experts for installation? 40Gbps backplane support and slot capability exists today 40Gbps interface capability “planned”, but not yet available SONET/SDH framing coloured interfaces ? Maybe but proprietary solutions

7. Router functionality Differentiated Classes of Service multicast ipv6 MPLS-based VPNs G-MPLS following standards, expected improved interoperability interdomain functionality still questionable

8. Switching developments Optical Cross Connects (OXC) Essentially digital cross connects with optical interfaces Also called O-E-O switches Photonic Cross Connects (PXC) Devices that work entirely in the optical domain Also called O-O-O switches

9. OXCs Scale to hundreds of Gbps, using advanced ASICs bandwidth grooming performed with proprietary techniques (not interoperable!) GMPLS developments: implementations still have proprietary features, although some interoperability demonstrated Colour DWDM interfaces: some proprietary examples Will only work with same vendor’s transmission equipment

10. PXCs All the rage a few years ago Now all but a few vendors have either moth-balled their products or gone out of business Can save on O-E-O conversions hence: footprint power consumption cost Bit rate, protocol & wavelength independence Scale up to tens of Tbps switching capacity Earliest envisaged use (of smaller products) as “remotely manageable optical patch panel”

11. PXC difficulties re-routing of wavelengths leads to optical channels in different route length: amplification and dispersion control difficult QoS hard to control Need external TDM devices for BW grooming interoperability

12. Transmission equipment Capabilities of current state-of-the-art DWDM transmission equipment far exceeds BW needs for the next few years Little vendor interoperability amongst transmission components nor is this likely to happen nature of systems is proprietary and analogue only “standards” are ITU grid wavelength specs may be possible to mix & match for low capability systems (CWDM, lower bit rates e.g. 2.5Gbps) Every DWDM link is bespoke: No “off the shelf” deployments

13. Reach Very complex equation. Depends on: fibre type (G.652, G655….) capacity of each wavelength number of wavelengths amplification technology used transmission technology used FEC

14. Reach with Nothing In Line (NIL) Using pre and post amplification up to 280km at 2.5Gbps (Cesnet experience) using RAMAN using cheaper equipment (1GE, EDFA amplifier) result was 189km 350km demonstrated

15. LH and ULH systems LH (to 1,500km) and ULH (to 4,000 km) require amplification at each span (40-100km) larger spans if less wavelengths (200km) at 10Gbps RAMAN FEC 40Gbps can reach 1,000+km with 80km spans RAMAN dispersion compensation at receiver PMD mitigators (depending on fibre)

16. Some conclusions 40Gbps: first in LH? Some say metro-area….. depends where economics work in its favour common view is that main driver will be router interface cards still more than 4x cost of 10Gbps… 80Gbps, 160Gbps technically possible, but in labs. (600Gbps has been demonstrated)

17. Network architectures New set of requirements for research networks: traditional users at large relatively limited number of users with requirements for limited coverage but very high capacity accessibility of “cheap” wavelengths in some parts of Europe developments of transmission technology in some cases NRENS can “do better without carriers”

18. Network Options Traditional IP (layer-3) only mixed layer-2 + layer-3, with OXCs (or PXCs) Owned fibre network a mix of all

19. Network Management and control Different network architecture means NRENS will manage new network elements Use traditional telco-style management systems as well as SNMP-based ones Integration of two needs work! G-MPLS has potential for integrated control, but interoperability and implementations conformant to standards not there yet