There is a new breeze moving though the
telecommunications landscape. It is
called convergence. However, it is not
the convergence, or “convergences”, that may first come to mind. As a review, some previous convergence examples:
- Private Networking Convergence: Move from Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and Frame Relay into Multi-Protocol Labeled Switching (MPLS)-based Virtual Private Network (VPN) services
- Provider Networking Convergence: The use of MPLS to provide a common “provider” core network to support the all data services
- Service Convergence: Converging voice and video services over Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks
All three of these represent the convergence of technology,
but the last one is different in a very specific and critical dimension. Since the beginning of data networking, the
systems used to provide voice services and data services may have shared common
network transport (e.g., point-to-point circuits and wavelengths), but differed
in planning, engineering, and operations.
Service Convergence of voice and private data networking
onto the same IP network infrastructure and required new thinking on the
organizations that support voice services.
No longer an independent Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)-based voice
backbone, the voice services organization transitioned to making requirements
on the converged, and most likely, MPLS-based IP-service network.
However, there is one critical area that did not converge. The hardware devices that support the voice
services are separate and distinct from the data networks. This includes items like call processing
servers, session boarder controllers, and TDM gateways. What this means is that with the exception of
the actual IP bandwidth, the voice
service planning, engineering, and operations teams still have a separate set
of devices to lifecycle manage.
Now, another convergence is on the horizon that does
convergence one step beyond and that is the actual merging of data networking
into the optical transport domain.
Right now, the product roadmaps of companies like ciena, Alcatel-Lucent,
Juniper, Cisco, and Infinera show a merging of the functionality of both the
DWDM optical layer and the functionality of a core MPLS provider “P” router in
one device.
Currently, at a service provider, these (the optical and
MPLS layers) are designed, acquired, and engineered independently by separate
internal organizations. This separation also extends into the
operations environment (i.e., the Network Operations Centers – NOCs) which
generally has separate transport, MPLS/IP, and voice groups.
The figure below shows examples of the kinds of convergence
environments that are in progress or emerging.
In the typical “Current Environment”, the MPLS P and PE layers are
grouped together and have a separate life-cycle. Similarly, the Synchronous Optical Networking
(SONET), and associated Ethernet interfaces for Ethernet-line (ELINE) services
are generally combined with the optical transport layer.
The emerging “Near-term Environment” (and in some cases
already implemented and deployed) has Optical Transport Network (OTN)
capabilities combined with SONET and Ethernet services integrated with Dense
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) transport. Of note, is that for most existing service
providers, these types of capabilities are already considered transport and
therefore this transition does not cause too much operations organization
disruption. This type of service looks
much like provisioned circuits, so the training and concept of operating the system
are familiar.
However, the next transition into the “Future Environment”
starts network operators down a different path.
The new convergence is the move of the traditional MPLS “P” function,
generally a large router providing MPLS-only (e.g., handles Labeled Switched
Paths only and does not “route”) capabilities, into the same hardware
environment that provides OTN and DWDM transport. Hardware vendors are banking on merging these
capabilities to significantly reduce the hardware costs and improve overall system
efficiency. Generally called integrated
optics or compatible optics, the approach is to remove the back-to-back optics
costs that are incurred by connecting separate pieces of equipment together
(e.g., between the “P” MPLS router and DWDM optical transport).
With this approach there needs to be some interesting
changes in engineering. The IP engineering
organization has to directly participate in the specification, testing, and
eventual deployment of such an integrated network component. This complicates the selection of systems. A real question for equipment vendors is
whether this integrated approach requires a too complicated set of organizational
issues for service providers. As I have
written previously, engineers love to hug their hardware.
If they are no longer in control, their natural reaction will be to
resist the change.
In parallel with changes in engineering, there are needed changes
in operations. In general, the operation
of MPLS devices are managed by a “Data” Network Operations Center (NOC), and
the transport equipment by a “Transport” NOC.
For many service providers, these may not even be collocated in the same
building. In general, the data network
looks at the optical service as an independent resource provided by an internal
service provider. Failures and issues
are addressed at the MPLS-layer. The
Transport NOC provides circuit resources and performs maintenance as needed,
generally not directly in regard with the users of their service, including the
MPLS network.
So, in the new environment, the transport and data network worlds
collide as there are significant operations inter-dependencies that need to be reconciled:
- Which team is primary on the equipment?
- What network management system monitors the equipment?
- How do you coordinate maintenance activities?
- Are there training gaps and skill gaps that need to be filled?
- Do you collapse the Data and Transport NOCs?
Even in light of these issues, the convergence train has
left the station and its next stop is yet another consolidation of equipment
which promises to increase scale, reduce cost, and increase power
efficiency. Engineering and Operations
staffs each of their respective services are going to have to get used to this
new reality and learn to start sharing the hugging of network hardware.
2 comments:
Hello Dr, Kaplow,
A very fine exposition here. I certainly concur with your conclusions. I have a few addendums and thoughts to add.
I would like to point out some additional benefits to the approach in your “Future Environment”. By combining the “P” router and the DWDM, one will likely save chassis deployment, multiple vendor management, and perhaps most importantly, the opportunity to have one management system, with one set of servers managing both the WDM and the “P” layers, with integrated fault management and capacity planning. Given the unceasing pressures to lower CapEx and OpEx cost per bit (due to the bandwidth demand increasing by 30-50% per year), some type of convergence is clearly unavoidable, for a viable business to continue.
I would add another Future Vision where the DWDM optics sit in the “P” router, and the Optical layer consists of the optical amplifiers, multiplexers, ROADMs, and optical monitoring cards. This is the so called Alien, or Black wave approach. It is also called IPoWDM by Cisco. This approach is quite viable and achieves many of the same goals, more easily and less contentiously than the approach outlined in your Future Environment. Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper, and others are all planning, or already offer this option. Also, at 10Gbps, with commercial XFP/SFP+ optics, it is being done today.
Regards
Bob
This post covers all topics aboutVoice Operations and Banking Outsourcing. Thanks for posting and keep further posting...!!
Post a Comment