First Mile Price

Metro Ethernet L2 & L3
Architectures
Paul Price
paprice@cisco.com
SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

Agenda
Market Dynamics
Infrastructure & Technology Options
Standards
Metro Ethernet Control Planes
Metro Ethernet Services
Summary
The Service Provider Transport Network
Architecture
Control Planes and Network Management Integration
The Services Bandwidth Barrier
Service POP
Edge Routing
Core Routing
Grooming
Access Metro Network Core Transport
Connects Customers Interconnects PoPs
to Services
Service Adaptation
and Packet Switching
DSL Packet Services:
Fixed Wireless
Frame Relay
ATM SDH VPNs Web Hosting SDH
Leased Lines DWDM QoS Voice over Packet Mesh
IP/RPR App Hosting Packet Transport
Cable DWDM
Gig Ethernet Content Hosting
Ethernet IP/MPLS POS
Issues Facing Subscribers and Network
Operators in the First Mile
Subscribers: Business and Residential

Access is still slow
Too much hand-holding, provisioning takes days
Few bandwidth options: kilobit, E1, or E3, nothing in between
If there is no service, subscribers dont need higher
bandwidth
Network Operators
Basic net structure is TDM and 64k bandwidth increments
Need flexible bandwidth, just-in-time provisioning
Multiple types of NEs
Need to support new services, generate revenue

Economic and Standard Driver
Cost of delivering bandwidth

100.000
SDH
ATM
10.000 GE
$/Port/Mbps/Month
1.000
LAN applications
100
MAN applications
WAN applications
10
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Souce: BCR Sept, 2000 by Peter Sevcik, NetForecast, Waltham, MA
End Customer Benefits from 1M to 100M
Two Network Infrastructure Changes;

Two Customer Equip Interface Changes
160
140
120 Legacy TDM Flexibility & Choice

Service (Mbps)
100
Wide choice of
80 bandwidths
60 Pay for what you need
40
Ethernet Keep your equipment
20
and change bandwidth
0 One Network Infrastructure Change

0 20 40 60 80 Customer
One 100 Equip Interface Change
Customer Need (Mbps)
US Metro Ethernet Services Opportunity
3000
2500
$ Millions
2000
Aggressive
1500
Conservative
1000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: IDC, Gartner Group, Yankee Group, Cisco Analysis
Agenda
Market Dynamics
Standards
Summary
Traditional Metro Infrastructure
Pre-Internet
STM-16
Backbone Ring Transit

Switch
Digital Cross Connect
Business Metropolitan Local

Ring Ring Switch
STM-1
STM-4
Local
Switch

Traditional Metro Infrastructure
Internet Era
STM-16
Backbone Ring
Business Metropolitan
Ring Ring
STM-1 STM-4

Traditional Metro Infrastructure Issues
Rigid Bandwidth Hierarchy

No Statistical Multiplexing
No Burst Support
No L2 and L3 Integration
No Multicast Support
No QoS

Next Generation SDH Infrastructure Option
STM-16
NextGen SDH
Backbone Ring
Backbone Network
Ring Ring STM-1/4/16/64 STM-1/4/16/64
Ring Ring
STM-1 STM-4

Metro Ethernet Infrastructure Option
OC-48 New Metro Ethernet Networks

Regional Ring
OC-48 OC-48 VoIP Gateway Video/IP Server
OC-48
3/1 Digital Cross

Connect
Data
OC-3 OC-12
OC-3
Access Access Regional
Ring Ring OC-12
OC- OC-12 Metro Eth
3
Voice/TDM
Existing Networks
OC-48 for Voice Growth
Regional
OC-48 Ring OC-48
OC-48
3/1 Digital Cross
Connect
OC-3 OC-12
OC-3 Access Access
OC-12
Ring Ring
OC- OC-12
3

Two Technology Options
Option 1: Ethernet Transport/Backhaul

Option 2: RPR Transport/Backhaul
Both provide Ethernet customer facing
interfaces (UNI)

Metro Access with EFM/ETTX Alternative
Ethernet Transport/Backhaul
CO OSP CPE
Vide
1000BASE-LX
o 100BASE-FX Cat 5
ONT Gateway
Dat ONT
1000BASE-X
TV PC
a SM
or ONT
MM
VoIP fiber Residential
SM
or 1000BASE-LX
MM 100BASE-FX Business
fiber
Vid
1 Gbps PC
< 10 km PC
PC
100 Mbps 100 Mbps
< 2 km < 100 m
OSP= Outside plant ONT= Optical network

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
terminator 15
Metro Access with EFM/ETTX Alternative
Ethernet Transport/Backhaul
POP/HUB
Access
Aggregation
Layer
Subtended Ring
Customer
Si Si Si Si
Access Si
Si
Si
Layer GE
Hub&Spoke GE Rings
The RPR (Resilient Packet Ring) Alternative
Powered by Dynamic Packet Transport
Regional Metro IP
Dynamic Packet Transport (DPT), the market-

leading Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) IEEE
802.17 solution
Based on the Cisco-developed Spatial Reuse
Protocol (SRP) RFC 2892
The RPR (Resilient Packet Ring) Alternative
Reliable IP/MPLS-aware Optical Transport
Regional Metro IP
Flexible architectures: Optical rings and stars, SRP/node re-ordering

Carrier-class reliability: <50ms recovery; IPS/L2 Path Restoration
Multi-layer Awareness: L1(optical monitoring); L2 (SRP stats);
L3 (IP Statistics)
Plug-and-Play operation: DPT features (topology discovery/ adds); Ethernet
subscriber interfaces
STM4, STM16 speeds, doubled, 1Gbps, 5Gbps
The RPR Ring Packet Flow
SRP-LC Ring B Ring A SRP-LC

O-Tx O-Rx
MAC MAC
I-Rx I-Tx
L3 L3
MAC MAC
O-Tx O-Rx
O-Rx O-Tx
I-Tx
I-Rx
Ring A Ring B
I-Rx
I-Tx
Ring B Ring A
MAC MAC
L3 L3
I-Tx I-Rx
MAC MAC
O-Rx O-Tx
SRP-LC Ring A Ring B SRP-LC
The RPR Node Packet Flow
Lo Priority
Hi Priority
Lo Priority
Hi Priority
Rx Queue Tx Queue
L3 Switching
Transit Buffer Ring B

Hi Priority
O-Rx Lo Priority
O-Tx
Hi Priority
I-Tx Lo Priority
I-Rx
Ring A SRP MAC Transit Buffer SRP MAC

The RPR Multicasting Support
Source
Packet flow
Sourced onto ring
GSR
with multicast bit set
Cisco 75XX
Received by
appropriate
routers on ring Cisco 75XX Cisco 75XX
Stripped from
ring by source GSR
Cisco 75XX
Cisco 75XX

Metro IP/Ethernet Architecture
Optimize the Metro Optical Infrastructure
B-ISDN IP over IP over IP over

ATM SONET/SDH Optical
Multiplexing, Protection, and Management at Every Layer

IP
ATM IP IP
SONET/SDH ATM SONET/SDH IP
IP-aware
Optical Optical Optical
Optical
Lower Cost, Complexity, and Overhead

Agenda
Market Dynamics
Standards
Summary
Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) Standards
January 2002 IEEE 802.17 ProceedingsThe Darwin Proposal
A new proposal-Darwin, was presented and is based

on Cisco developed SRP technology (IETF
informational RFC 2892). It retains the features and
benefits of SRP with the addition of enhancements
for broader industry application. It continues work
that was published as the Gandalf proposal.
Darwin was proposed as the basis for the first
working group draft.
The Darwin proposal has support from over 20
companies
http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents.htm
Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) Standards
IEEE 802.17 Working Group Timeline
As found in
http://www.rpralliance.org/articles/Timeline.pdf
Nov 2001 Proposal Draft
Jan 2002 First draft
Mar 2002 Last Addition to draft
Jul 2002 Working Group Ballot
Sep 2002 Last technical change
Nov 2002 IEEE 802 Sponsor ballot
Mar 2003 - Standard
IEEE 802.3ah EFM Standards
Layer Diagram
Media Access Control (MAC)

Full Duplex
Ethernet Media Independent Interface (MII)

optional
1000BASE-X PHY EoVDSL PHY EPON PHY
Optical Copper Optical

PMD PMD PMD
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/efm/public/index.html
IEEE 802.3ah EFM Standards
Prospective Schedule for IEEE 802.3ah Task Force
2000 2001 2002 2003
EFM SG PAR LMSC

Formed Drafted Ballot
Working Standard
PAR 802.3ah Group
Approved Formed Ballot
EFM SG (Ethernet in the First Mile Speed Study Group)

PAR (Project Authorization Request)
802.3ahthe name of the project
and the name of the sub-committee of IEEE 802.3
chartered with writing the Ethernet in the first mile
standard
Agenda
Market Dynamics
Standards
Summary
Control Plane And Data Plane
Network functions separated into 2 planes

Control Plane
Routing protocols, creates FIBs
Builds adjancey tables
What the Processor does
Data Plane
Forwards packets
High Speed ASICSs
FIB tables installed

Metro Ethernet Planes
Diff (CoS) Internet TLS IP VPN Packet

Services Access (L2 VPN) (L3 VPN) Telephony
IEEE 802.1Q
Spanning Tree Protocol

Flat Metro Ethernet Switching System
Transparent LAN Svc 802.1QinQ/STP Control Plane
UNI 3550 UNI

3550 Enterprise
Campus
C
Metro
GbE GbE
Network
Enterprise
3550 4000* 4000* 3550
Campus
B 10/100Mbit
Ethernet

Metro Ethernet Planes => Scalability

IEEE 802.1q / UTI/EoMPLS / MPLS VPN
Spanning Tree Protocol & IP/MPLS

Scalable Metro Ethernet Switching System
Directed VLAN Svc EoMPLS Control Plane
802.1qinq Tag 802.1qinq Tag
IP VPN Service MPLS Control Plane

Ethernet VC Svc EoMPLS Control Plane
802.1q Tag 802.1q Tag
UNI 3550/
3550/
4000
4000
GE MPLS- Metro GE 3550/
Metro enabled
GE Network Network 4000
Network
GE
Enterprise 3550/ 7600 Enterprise
Campus 4000 7600 12000 Campus
GE
UNI
Metro IP/Ethernet (RPR) Planes

IP / UTI/L2TPv3 / EoMPLS / MPLS VPN
IEEE 802.17 RPR

Metro IP (RPR) System Ethernet Access
Ethernet VC Svc EoMPLS or L2TPv3 CP

IP VPN Svc MPLS Control Plane
IP Service IP Control Plane
DPT/RPR
12000
10720/
UNI 7600

Hybrid Metro IP/Metro Ethernet Switching
Ethernet VC Svc EoMPLS or L2TPv3 CP

IP VPN Svc MPLS Control Plane
IP Service IP Control Plane
UNI 802.1q Tag
3550/4000
GE DPT/RPR
Enterprise 3550/ 12000

Campus 4000 10720/7600

Discussion (1)
TLS is required when customers have a need to interconnect

individual L2 networks to form a single flat L2 network where
connectivity is controlled by the Spanning Tree Protocol
TLS assumes L2 capabilities in SP network which can lead to
scalability problems there
participation of SP switches in STP (performance, stability)
increase of number of hops (customer has to add number of hops
in SP network to those in his own network to check whether
requirements of max. 7 for STP are still met)
knowledge of customers MAC addresses by SP switches (number
potentially huge!)
SPs should thoroughly understand their customers real needs,
i.e., find out whether they really need TLS, or whether EVCS
would be better suited (sometimes TLS is falsely used as a
synonym for all the Ethernet-based approaches presented)

Ethernet Transparent LAN Service
802.1QinQ
Access (L2) Core (L2) Access (L2)
802.1QinQ 802.1Q 802.1QinQ
Enterprise Enterprise
Site A Site B
802.1Q
802.1QinQ Si
802.1QinQ
Si
Enterprise L2 Ethernet Enterprise

Site C Site D
802.1Q Trunks
to Customer Defined VLANS
802.1QinQ Si Si 802.1QinQ
To the Enterprise this network look like

a shared flat earth 802.1Q Ethernet Domain
A B C D
Discussion (2)
Enterprise networks are typically built using

routers between (small) L2 segments (e.g.
spanning a floor of a building)
Interconnection of enterprise sites virtually
always uses gateway routers into the SP network
=> EVCS is most appropriate L2 service to
interconnect enterprise sites
EVCS can be provided using EoMPLS or L2TPv3
mechanisms across a L3 network, thus avoiding
scalability problems inherent to L2 networks in
SP environment
Ethernet Service is not necessarily LAN
Emulation
Ethernet Virtual Circuit EoMPLS
Access (L2) Core Access (L2)

Ethernet MPLS Ethernet
MPLS PE MPLS PE
MPLS
10/100/Gigabit 10/100/Gigabit
Ethernet Ethernet
Ethernet Circuit
Enterprise EoMPLS Tunnel in Core Enterprise
Campus Campus
A Ethernet Mapped Circuit B
To the Enterprise this network is

a pair of Pt to Pt 10/100/Gbit/s Bridged Ethernet Links
A B
Ethernet Virtual Circuit L2TPv3 (UTI)
Access (L2) Core Access (L2)

Ethernet IP Ethernet
IP
10/100/Gigabit 10/100/Gigabit
Ethernet Ethernet
Ethernet Circuit
Enterprise IP Tunnel in Core Enterprise
Campus Campus
A Ethernet Mapped Circuit B
To the Enterprise this network is

a pair of Pt to Pt 10/100/Gbit/s Bridged Ethernet Links
A B
Layer-2 Transport across MPLS
Two relevant drafts by Luca Martini

draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls
describes label distribution mechanisms for VC labels

draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls
describes emulated VC encapsulation mechanisms

Relevant for the transport of FR, ATM AAL5, ATM
cell, Ethernet (Port Trunking), Ethernet 802.1q
(VLAN), POS, TDM, Cisco HDLC & PPP protocol
data units
across either an MPLS or an IP backbone

Virtual Circuit FEC Element
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
VC TLV (0x80) C VC-type VC info length
Group ID
VC ID
Interface Parameters
C: Control Word (1 bit) Control word present if bit set

VC-type (15 bits) - Type of VC e.g FR, ATM, VLAN, Ethernet, PPP, HDLC
VC info length (8 bits) Length of VCID field and interface parameters
Group ID (32 bits) Represents a groups of VCs. Can be used for mass label
withdrawal
VC ID (32 bits) Connection identifier used in conjunction with the VC-type to
identify a particular VC
Interface Parameters (Variable) Edge facing interface parameters, such as MTU
Layer-2 Transport Control Word
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
Tunnel Label Tunnel Label (LDP or RSVP) EXP 0 TTL
VC Label VC Label (VC) EXP 1 TTL (set to 2)
Control Word Rsvd Flags 0 0 Length Sequence number
Layer-2 PDU
When transporting layer-2 protocols over an IP or

MPLS backbone:
The sequence of the packets may need to be preserved;
Small packets may need to be padded if the minimum MTU of the
medium is larger than actual packet size;
Control bits carried in header of Layer-2 frame may need to be
transported
Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Three main requirements for transport of Ethernet

frames
802.1q VLAN to 802.1q VLAN transport;
802.1q VLAN port to port transport;
Ethernet port to port transport
802.1q VLAN to VLAN transport
VC-type 0x0004 within draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls;
VC-type 0x0005 port-to-port Ethernet trunking & port-to-port

Ethernet 802.1q VLAN Transport
VLAN 56
MPLS Customer
Site
PE1 PE1
VLAN 41 1.0.0.4 1.0.0.8
VLAN 41
VLAN 56
Customer
Site
Customer
Site
Customer
Site
802.1q to 802.1q VLAN Transport

EoMPLS Encapsulation Details
Ethernet PDUs are transported without the preamble,

SFD and FCS
but including all VLAN information such as VCID
The control word is optional
C bit is set by default in Cisco implementation
If the control word is used then the flags must be set to
zero
The VLAN tag is transmitted unchanged but may be
overwritten by the egress PE router
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
Rsvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 Length Sequence number Optional
Ethernet PDU
IP VPN, L2TP, UTI
Cisco Product: UTI/L2TPv3

UTI is a high performance transparent tunnelling protocol. It is
aimed at 150Mb/s to 10Gb/s level two tunnelling applications
Encapsulation: L2TPv3
IETF standardization: L2TPv3: data & control planes
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/l2tpext-charter.html
Cisco Pre-Standards technology: UTI

11/01: UTI matches L2TPv3 latest draft
UTI: Universal Transport Interface
high-performance transparent encapsulation protocol optimized for the
encapsulation of one protocol over another.

UTI/L2TPv3 Encapsulation
UTI Header
Payload
UTI 0 1 2 3
Payload Dependent 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Header | TUNNEL IDENTIFIER |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
UTI | TUNNEL Key |
Payload Independent + +
| (64 bit signature) |
Header -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IP header
One of the formats that L2TPv3 will support is

the existing UTI encapsulation
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-01.txt
Basic UTI/L2TPv3 tunnels
UTI tunnelled
serial interface
tu1
pos2 pos3 R4
R3 pos1 IP Network pos4
e2 R2
R1 e1
UTI tunnelled LAN
LAN1 tu2
LAN2
Crossconnect any interface with any other interface

through an IP network
Why UTI/L2TP rather than GRE?
UTI/L2TPv3 is more scalable to high performance (10G)

To identify a GRE tunnel you have to do a source + destination IP
address pair lookup. This is very perf consuming and not needed for
L2Transport
GRE header has many options which are complex to program in
HW
Scales to 10gbps
Leverage L2TP control plane and deployment experience
IETF since 96, IOS implementation since 98
Similar Objective (Eth, FR, PPP over IP)
Experience to be leveraged

Agenda
Market Dynamics
Standards
Summary
New Generation of Services...
Totally Digital
Totally Integrated
One Single Provider
Downstream Upstream
Broadband Access
7680/1280 Kbps 3 VoIP Terminals 2 Digital TV 2 Personal Computers 4 Monitoring

VoIP MPEG WEB Systems
128/128 Kbps 3072/64 Kbps 512/128 Kbps 32/128 Kbps
384/384 Kbps 6144/128 Kbps 1024/256 Kbps 128/512 Kbps
Online
Telephony Digital TV Services Surveillance
But the Todays Services are
Ethernet Virtual Circuit

Flexible Speed IP VPN
Voice over IP
Content Services
High Speed Internet

Layer 2 (EoMPLS or UTI/L2TPv3) EVCS Service
Customers are located on different floors and connected to the HQ via UTI or EoMPLS
UTI or EoMPLS tunnel is configured on each interface the customer is homing on
VPN Solution Center

Office Tower Customer As
Customer A Corporate HQ
UTI tunnel
IP/MPLS Cisco10720
Floor 2 Core
Cisco10720 Customer Bs
Customer B
Corporate HQ
Cisco10720
EoMPLS tunnel
Floor 1

MPLS-based IP VPN Service
IP VPN over MPLS Backbone Customer As

Corporate Intranet
Customer A VPN Solution Center PoP
CE CE
P PE
Cisco 10720
PE
Office Tower 1 IP/MPLS
Core
Customer B Cisco 10720
CE PE
Cisco 10720 CE
P
Customer Bs
Office Tower 2 Corporate Intranet

Variable Bandwidth Service
Variable bandwidth Service in increments

Customer A
15Mbps
of 1 Mbps up to 100Mbps
Hub Using CAR on both Input and output
Customer B
10Mbps (Ethernet interface) to limit bandwidth to
Switch
each Customer
Customer C
5Mbps
Router
Customer D fa2/2 Customers Customers
fa2/3
1Mbps fa2/1 Backbone
Regional IP Transport ring
Router
fa2/4
10720 Router
Customers Customers

Agenda
Market Dynamics
Standards
Summary
Metro Landscape Diversity
Customers Ent/SMB Retail SP Consumer
SP Segments ILEC/PTT IXC/T1ISP ESP
IP VPNs L2 Enet VPN GbE PL Storage

Services Internet
Access FR/ATM VPN TDM PL Wavelengths
Metro Optical
Transport System
Systems
Metro Ethernet Metro IP
Switching System System
SONET/
Technologies IP DPT/RPR EFM Ethernet WDM
SDH

Paul Price
paprice@cisco.com
2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 60

First Mile Price

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Mile Price

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metro Ethernet L2 & L3

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

Infrastructure & Technology Options

Metro Ethernet Control Planes

Metro Ethernet Services

Control Planes and Network Management Integration

The Services Bandwidth Barrier

Subscribers: Business and Residential

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 4

Cost of delivering bandwidth

Two Network Infrastructure Changes;

120 Legacy TDM Flexibility & Choice

0 One Network Infrastructure Change

Infrastructure & Technology Options

Metro Ethernet Control Planes

Metro Ethernet Services

Backbone Ring Transit

Digital Cross Connect

Business Metropolitan Local

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 9

Digital Cross Connect

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 10

Rigid Bandwidth Hierarchy

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 11

Digital Cross Connect

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 12

OC-48 New Metro Ethernet Networks

3/1 Digital Cross

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 13

Option 1: Ethernet Transport/Backhaul

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 14

OSP= Outside plant ONT= Optical network

Dynamic Packet Transport (DPT), the market-

Flexible architectures: Optical rings and stars, SRP/node re-ordering

SRP-LC Ring B Ring A SRP-LC

Transit Buffer Ring B

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 20

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 21

B-ISDN IP over IP over IP over

Multiplexing, Protection, and Management at Every Layer

SONET/SDH ATM SONET/SDH IP

Lower Cost, Complexity, and Overhead

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 22

Infrastructure & Technology Options

Metro Ethernet Control Planes

Metro Ethernet Services

A new proposal-Darwin, was presented and is based

Media Access Control (MAC)

Ethernet Media Independent Interface (MII)

1000BASE-X PHY EoVDSL PHY EPON PHY

Optical Copper Optical

2000 2001 2002 2003

EFM SG PAR LMSC

EFM SG (Ethernet in the First Mile Speed Study Group)

Infrastructure & Technology Options

Metro Ethernet Control Planes

Metro Ethernet Services

Network functions separated into 2 planes

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 29

Diff (CoS) Internet TLS IP VPN Packet

Spanning Tree Protocol

SP Latin America 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 30

Transparent LAN Svc 802.1QinQ/STP Control Plane

UNI 3550 UNI