Components of DATA and INTERNET NETWORKING MSc MODULE

(EEM.din, Linked UG EE4.din)

IP and ATM Internetworking

(CIPA, LANE & MPLS)
Dr. Zhili SUN
University of Surrey
Guildford
Surrey
GU2 5XH
Tel: 01483 68 9493
Fax: 01483 68 6011
Email: Z.Sun@eim.surrey.ac.uk

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Table of Contents

1. Classical IP over ATM (CIPA)

2. LAN Emulation (LANE)
3. Multi-Protocol Label Switch (MPLS)
4. Summary

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 1. Classical IP Over ATM (CIPA)

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Why IP over ATM?

■ The motivation of “IP over ATM” is to support

TCP/IP and applications based on TCP/IP
which are widely used long before ATM is
developed and to allow interoperability between
ATM networks and existing networks

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP Over ATM – Protocol Stack

Application
TCP/UDP Layer
IP Layer
AAL 5
ATM Layer
Physical Layer

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Classical IP Over ATM
■ The “Classical IP Over ATM” provides mechanisms for
encapsulation and transmission of IP network layer packets
across an ATM Adaptive Layer (AAL) 5 connection
■ It provides a mechanism for the resolution of IP addresses
to their corresponding ATM addresses (this is part of the
"classical IP over ATM" protocol)
■ It includes the emerging “Next Hop Resolution Protocol
(NHRP)“, and
■ IP multicast over ATM via a combination of multicast
servers and overlaid point to multi-point connections

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Encapsulation
■ Encapsulation allows for the multiplexing of multiple
packet types (at the network layer) on the same
connection:
• Conserves connection resources
• Saves on connection setup time
■ Multiplex only with UBR, ABR - VBR may require distinct
flows
■ Packet must be prefixed with multiplexing field to allow
node that receives a network layer packet across an
ATM connection:
• To know what type of packet has been received
• To know what application to pass the packet to
7

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Encapsulation (cont.) - RFC 1483
■ Methods for identifying this type of information are:
• Subnet Access Protocol / Logical Link Control
(LLC/SNAP) Encapsulation - type of packet identified by
header (default encapsulation for IP over ATM)
• VC multiplexing - only single protocol carried across ATM
connection with type of protocol identified at connection
setup (used by LANE); used for direct connectivity
between ATM connections
■ Default MTU size is 9180 bytes (+ 8 byte LLC/SNAP header
= 9188 bytes) - MTU size can be negotiated up to maximum
for AAL 5 (64 Kbytes)
8

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Address Resolution - RFC 1577
■ The "classical" view of IP is one in which clusters of IP
nodes (hosts and routers) with similar subnet addresses
are connected to nodes outside their cluster by IP routers
■ The IETF adhered to this "classical" view by grouping IP
nodes into logical IP subnets (LIS) - nodes share the same
IP subnet, communicate with the outside through an IP
router
■ When node first "comes up" in LIS it establishes a
connection with ATMARP server - the node is configured
to know the ATM address of the server for address
resolution
9

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Address Resolution (cont.)

■ ATMARP server (can be part of router - but 1577

recommends that it be another IP station) detects a new
LIS client:
• Sends Inverse ARP (have ATM address, want IP
address) request to the attaching client
• Requests node’s IP and ATM addresses - stores them
in its ATMARP table
• Server learn this information by observing client
messages

10

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Address Resolution (cont.)

■ To resolve destination IP address:

• client sends ATMARP (have IP address, want ATM address)
request to server
• server responds with ATMARP reply if address mapping is found
• if not returns ATM_NAK
■ ATMARP server sends out periodic Inverse ARP requests
to update its addresses - if no response - address
eliminated
■ Once client obtains ATM address corresponding to an IP
destination - set up connection to that address (ATMARP
servers also keeps track of VC’s)
11

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Routing across ATM with the Classical mode
Routing 1
131.227.10.X -> direct ATM
131.227.23.X -> via 131.227.10.2 Switch 131.227.10.2
131.227.45.X -> via 131.227.10.3 B
131.227.67.X -> via 131.227.10.3 131.227.23.X
Address Resolution 2
131.227.10.2 -> B
ARP
131.227.10.3 -> C
3 ATM Server
Network
A C
ATM
131.227.10.1 Switch ATM
131.227.10.3 Switch
4 131.227.45.X
131.227.45.9
131.227.67.X
■ 1. Routing table maps final destination to next hop
■ 2. address resolution table or server maps the next hop IP address to ATM address
■ 3. Signalling creates ATM virtual connection between routers
■ 4. forward packet over ATM virtual connection
12

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Address Resolution (cont.)

■ Disadvantages:
• Communicate to host outside of LIS - go through
router even though might be able to connect directly
to destination
• Routers become bottlenecks
• Can’t establish connection with QoS between the
two nodes

13

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)

■ Used instead of a LIS - Non-broadcast Multi-access

(NBMA) network
■ Network technology permitting multiple devices to be
attached to the same network, but does not easily
permit the use of broadcast mechanisms (ATM, X.25,
Frame Relay, etc)
■ Could be divided into administrative domains
■ NHRP applies only within domain
■ Allows access to ingress points of other domains

14

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 NHRP server (NHS)

■ NHRP server (NHS) instead of ATMARP server

■ IP to ATM mapping of nodes associated with an NHS
■ IP address prefixes available through routers served
by the NHS Nodes.
■ Nodes are configured with ATM address of their NHS
■ Then register their ATM and IP address with NHS
using registration packets

15

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 NHS Configurations

■ “Server" mode
• each server has list of destinations served by other
NHS’s
• static configuration
• good for only small networks
■ “Fabric" mode
• servers acquire knowledge of destinations served
by other NHS’s through intra and inter domain
routing protocols

16

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 NHRP Operations

■ Routing - client sends request (in IP packet - all NMBA

messages in IP packets) to its NHS asking to resolve an
ATM address
• if destination served by NHS - returns mapping
• if not served - forwards to another NHS - same
algorithm used there
• reply sent along reverse route - all NHS’s can learn of
mapping -

17

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 NHRP Operations (cont.)

■ Future requests - respond without forwarding request

■ Direct connection established after address resolution
■ Optional capabilities:
• route recording
• detect loops
• fallback
• address aggregation - return subnet mask associated
with an address (i.e. address of firewall associated
with ingress NHS of an administrative domain)

18

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 NHRP issues

■ NHRP likely used on routers for frame relay, X.25

■ Enhancements needed for widespread ATM use:
• autoconfiguration (?)
• multi-casting
• NHRP mechanism very IP specific - everything sent
within IP packets
■ RFC1577 compliant system and NHRP may not be
interoperable
• have to be connected by a router
• connection of either to LANE system also requires a
router
19

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Multicasting (IPMC)
■ Multicasting is a process whereby a source host or protocol
entity sends a packet to multiple destinations simultaneously
using a single local transmit operation
■ The more familiar cases of Unicasting and Broadcasting may
be considered as special cases of Multicasting (with the
packet delivered to "one" destination or "all" destinations
respectively)
■ Most network layer models assume their sources may send
their packets to abstract "multicast group addresses"
■ Link layer support is assumed to exist and is provided by
such technologies as Ethernet
■ ATM is being utilized as a new link layer technology to
support a variety of protocols including IP
20

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP over ATM Multicasting (IPMC)(cont.)
■ With RFC 1483 (2), the IETF defined a multiprotocol
mechanism for encapsulating and transporting packets
using AAL5 over ATM Virtual Channels (VC’s)
■ Unicast connections are supported by point to point bi-
directional VC’s. Multicasting is supported by point to
multipoint unidirectional VC’s
■ The key limitation is that the sender must have prior
knowledge of each intended recipient and explicitly establish
a VC with itself as a root node and the recipients as leaf
nodes
■ The Internet Draft IPMC contains more information about IP
over ATM Multicasting 21

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 The future direction of IP over ATM

■ IPng (IPv6) over ATM (internet draft)

■ Support for Multicast of IP Packets over ATM
(internet draft)
■ Multiprotocol Encapsulation over AAL5 (internet draft)

22

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Recommended Texts

■ RFC 1483, Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM

adaptation layer 5
■ RFC 1577, Classical IP and ARP over ATM
■ RFC 1755, ATM signalling Support for IP over ATM
■ RFC 2022, Multicast Address Resolution (MARS)
protocols

23

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 2. LAN Emulation (LANE)

24

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Characteristics of LANs

■ Connectionless traffic
■ Delivery of traffic via a shared medium
• Unicast
• Broadcast
• Multicast
■ MAC address independent of network topology

25

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 OSI Reference Model

■ LAN Emulation is a Data Link Function

Application
Presentation
Session
Transport
Routing: protocol dependent Network
LLC
Bridging: protocol independent Data Link LAN Emulation
MAC
Repeaters Physical

26

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Features of LAN Emulation

■ There are currently no ATM specific protocols

■ Make an ATM networks looks like a LAN
■ LANE is protocol independent
■ Integration of ATM and non-ATM devices without
changes to application software
■ Traditional LAN services are supported
■ Compliance and interoperability with others
■ Support multiple emulated LANs on a single ATM
network

27

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 ATM Forum LANE

■ Separate servers for configuration, address

resolution and broadcasts/multicasts
■ ATM “cloud” treated as multiple broadcast domains
Emulated LAN (ELAN)
■ Emulated Ethernet (802.3) , Token ring (802.5)

28

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 LANE Components

■ LE Client (LEC)
■ LANE Configuration Server (LECS)
■ LANE Server (LES) - MAC to ATM address resolution
for unicast traffic
■ Broadcast/Unknown Server (BUS) - forward
multicast, broadcast and unknown unicast packets
■ LECS, LES and BUS are known as LAN Emulation
Service which may be implemented in a router,
switch, or other ATM attached devices

29

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Communication between LECs

■ Each LEC registers MAC address with LES

■ When MAC-to-ATM address resolution is required
due to a outgoing data frame:
• LE_ARP request sent to LES
• DATA frame sent to BUS
■ The ATM address received from the LES is used to
send up ATM connection and further data exchanges
■ All broadcasts, multicasts and unknown unicasts
handled by BUS

30

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 LANE Client/Server Architecture

LECS LEC

ATM
LES ATM-Attached
Switch
Client
BUS ATM ATM ATM
Switch Backbone Switch
Edge
LEC
Device
ATM
Switch

LEC
ATM-Attached
Servers
LEC ATM-Attached
Clients
31

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 LANE Address resolution

BUS LECS
LES
t
ge

ATM
ta r

ATM-Attached
Switch
C
MA

Client
I
VC
st:

M
e

ATM
AT
qu

ATM ATM
re

:
ply

Switch Backbone Switch

R

re

Edge
AP

LEC
2.

AP

Device
Bridge ATM
3.

5. MAC frame
Switch

4. set-up ATM SVC

LEC
1. MAC frame
ATM-Attached
Clients
32

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 3. Multi-Protocol Label Switching

33

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 What is MPLS ?

Multi-Protocol Label Switching developed within IETF

ŒA connection-orientated forwarding mechanism

ŒHop-by-hop or source routing to establish label path

ŒUses labels native to the media

ŒMulti-level label substitution transport

ŒSimple core - complexity at the edge of a domain

34

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 MPLS Terminology
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
LDP: Label Distribution Protocol
LSP: Label Switched Path
FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
LSR: Label Switching Router
LER: Label Edge Router
ER: Explicit Route
CR: Constraint-based Route
TE: Traffic Engineering
QoS: Quality of Service
CoS: Class of Service
SLA: Service Level Agreement

35

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP Routing

Dest Out Dest Out

47.1 1 47.1 2
47.2 1 47.2 1
47.3 3 47.3 3 Subnet 47.2
IP 47.1.1.1
1
1 3
3 2 2
IP 47.1.1.1
IP 47.1.1.1

1 1
IP 47.1.1.1
2 IP 47.1.1.1

Subnet 47.3 3 Subnet 47.1

Dest Out 2 3 Dest Out
47.1 1 47.1 2
47.2 1 47.2 1
47.3 3 47.3 1

36

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 IP Routing vs Fast Forwarding

End System End System

Longest Prefix Match
App App
Routing Fwding
Table Table
T/Port Router LSR T/Port

NET NET NET

DLink DLink DLink DLink DLink

PHY PHY PHY PHY PHY PHY

Complex routing decision Simple label swapping

37

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Forwarding Equivalence Classes

LER LSR LSR LER

LSP

IP1 IP1
#L1 IP1 #L2 IP1 #L3 IP1
#L1 IP2 #L2 IP2 #L3 IP2
IP2 IP2

Packets
Packets are
are destined
destined for
for different
different address
address prefixes,
prefixes, but
but can
can be
be mapped
mapped to
to aa common
common path
path

FEC = “A subset of packets that are all treated the same way by a router”

The concept of FECs provides for a great deal of flexibility and scalability

In conventional routing, a packet is assigned to a FEC at each hop

(i.e. L3 look-up), in MPLS it is only done once at the network ingress
38

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 MPLS Label Distribution
Swap Label
I/F In LIn I/FOut LOut
3 3:50 1 1:40 Subnet 47.2
Req 47.1 Swap Label
1 I/F In LIn I/FOut LOut
Push Label 3 1:40 2 1:12
1 3
I/F In Dest I/FOut LOut 3 2 Map 1:40 2
3 47.1 1 3:50 Req 47.1
Req 47.1 Map 1:12
Map 3:50
1 1
2
Subnet 47.3 Subnet 47.1
3
2 3
Pop Label
I/F In LIn I/FOut Dest
3 1:12 2 47.1

39

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Label Switched Path (LSP)
I/F In LIn I/FOut LOut
3 3:50 1 1:40
Subnet 47.2
#1:40 IP 47.1.1.1
1 I/F In LIn I/FOut LOut
3 1:40 2 1:12
I/F In Dest I/FOut LOut
3 47.1 1 3:50
#3:50 IP 47.1.1.1 #1:12 IP 47.1.1.1

1 1
IP 47.1.1.1
2 IP 47.1.1.1

Subnet 47.3 3 Subnet 47.1

2 3

I/F In LIn I/FOut Dest

3 1:12 2 47.1

LSPs are communication “pipes”

Data goes in at one end and comes out of the 40
other in the same sequence
IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun
 “Vanilla” Label Switched Path
#14 #311
#216
#99 #311
#963 #311

#14
#612 #963
#462
#311

#99
#5

A Vanilla LSP is actually part of a tree from every source to that

destination (unidirectional)
Vanilla LDP builds that tree using existing IP routing tables to route
the control messages
41

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering is the process of mapping
traffic demand onto network resources
Purpose of traffic engineering:
Maximize utilization of links and nodes throughout the network

Select links in order to achieve required delay, grade-of-service

Spread the network traffic across network links, minimize impact of

single failure

Ensure available spare link capacity for re-routing traffic on failure

Meet policy requirements imposed by the network operator

42

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Why Constraint-based Routed – LDP (CR-LDP)?
IP routing causes data to over-utilize best paths and under-utilize
less good paths

Basic LDP is fast, simple forwarding / switching, BUT data follows

same route as normal IP data path causing data to over-utilize best
paths and under-utilize less good paths

We need…
A topology database that knows about link attributes
A label distribution protocol that goes where it’s told

Constraint Based Routing provides a mechanism for selecting paths

based on CHOSEN Criteria (not just a one criterion)

43

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 CR-LDP Provides…

ŒSimple protocol based on LDP, output of MPLS WG

Œbasic hop-by-hop LDP is not needed

ŒRuns on TCP (like LDP) = Reliable

ŒHard State (like LDP) = Scalable

ŒSupports Traffic Engineering with QoS Support

ŒBoth Explicit Routes and Loose routes supported

ŒDemonstrated Interoperability

44

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Explicitly Routed LSP using CR-LDP

Operator has routing flexibility Least cost

(policy-based, QoS-based) congestion “hot
spots” can be Subnet 47.2
avoided

Pre-computed
backup paths for
resiliency

IP 47.1.1.1 IP 47.1.1.1

Subnet 47.3 Subnet 47.1

Using Explicit Routing any

chosen path can be setup
across the MPLS domain
45

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Label Stacking
Label stacking – facilitates scaling and inter-operator working

LSP1 LSP1

LSP3 LSP3

LSP2 LSP2

Access Provider Carrier MPLS Domain Access Provider

MPLS Domain MPLS Domain

IP-A LSP1 IP-A LSP1 IP-A IP-A

LSP3 LSP1 IP-A

LSP3 LSP2 IP-B

IP-B LSP2 IP-B LSP2 IP-B IP-B

46

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Summary (1/2)

Fast forwarding based on label swapping

Decouples routing and forwarding in IP networks and

can co-exist with other protocols

Facilitates the integration of ATM and IP

Enables the use of explicit routing for traffic

engineering in IP networks

Promotes the partitioning of network functionality

(complexity at edge)

47

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun

 Summary (2/2)

MPLS is “multiprotocol” below (link layer) as well as above

(network layer), providing for consistent operations,
interworking across multiple technologies

Improved routing scalability through stacking of labels

Flexible FEC to Label binding allows for full multi-service support

MPLS positioned as end-to-end forwarding paradigm

48

IP and ATM Internetworking (CIPA, LANE & MPLS) © Dr. Z. Sun