Handling Bandwidth Fragmentation: OTN way

1. Introduction
SONET/SDH networks are most widespread today. These networks were established keeping in mind only the voice (TDM) traffic. With the advent of data services and the constraints on OPEX and CAPEX to build new infrastructure, technologies were built to support data services over SONET/SDH networks. For some time voice and data could coexist on the same network. But now data seems to override voice in terms of volumes many folds. As a matter of fact voice seems to flow through packets only thus causing the incredible growth is bandwidth demands. Convergence of voice, data and video is putting tremendous pressure on the existing infrastructure. On account of operators willingness to use existing infrastructure more efficiently rather than having any further expenditure on CAPEX pushed researchers/engineers to come out with novel ways to handle BF in traditional SONET/SDH networks. But none of the algorithms could provide 100% guarantee of bandwidth defragmentation in either hitless way or without using any extra resources. This incessant growth in the bandwidth requirements and limitations of traditional SONET/SDH networks to support data services efficiently beyond a limit manifested in the development of OTN standard. Though it may take good amount of time for OTN to overwhelmingly replace SONET/SDH, any new investments in optical CAPEX and OPEX will be done in OTN based networks only. However big or small OTN network may come out to be, handling BF will still be a concern for all the network operators. As BF is observed over a period of time which impact revenues over a long run, every network operator would like to understand the panacea offered by OTN for handling BF before they decide to invest in OTN networks.

2. Limitations of SONET/SDH standards

Following are some of the shortcomings of SONET/SDH when it comes to bandwidth profiling

Contiguous Concatenation
Time slots for the standard SONET/SDH granularities (STS1, STS3, STS12, STS48, STS192) for TDM applications are contiguously concatenated. Virtual Concatenation which obviates the requirement of contiguous concatenation is typically used for data services only. Hence if an operator wants to modify a virtually concatenated circuit used for carrying data services into a TDM circuit of equal bandwidth, BF issues will still be lingering

SONET Bandwidth Profile with Conteguous Concatenation

Time Slot Alignment

Time slot assignment for standard SONET/SDH granularities needs to follow mod nrule. It means that STS 1 can take any time slot. STS3 needs to start at time slots numbered at multiple of 3. STS12 needs to start at time slots numbered at multiple of 12 and so on and so forth. It manifests that only having contiguous availability of time slot is not sufficient, modularity of the granularity also needs to be taken into consideration while allocating bandwidth.

SONET Bandwidth Profile with Time Slot Alignment

3. OTN Way
A possible panacea for the constraints mentioned in section 3 would be to allow selecting time slots from the unoccupied ones at the time of allocating the bandwidth rather than imposing the rules of contiguous concatenation and mod n. This is what OTN standard allows thus obviating any possibility of BF at any time. Hence if the transport pipe has the bandwidth available, no service request would be denied.

ODTU Definition
ODTU is the tributary entity which contributes towards a multiplexed higher order ODU. There are 2 types of ODTUs

ODTUjk ((j,k): {(0,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,3)}; ODTU01, ODTU12, ODTU13 and ODTU23) in which an ODUj signal is mapped into ODUk via the asynchronous mapping procedure (AMP). In this scheme, the underlying multiplexing structure of higher order ODU is homogeneous. Following diagram depicts the multiplexed structure for ODTU12

ODTU12 with ODU1 tributary slots

ODTU12 with ODU0 tributary slots

ODTUk.ts ((k,ts) = (2,1..8), (3,1..32), (4,1..80)) in which a lower order ODU (ODU0,ODU1, ODU2, ODU2e, ODU3, ODUflex) signal is mapped into ODUk via the generic mapping procedure (GMP). In this scheme, the underlying multiplexing structure of higher order ODU can be non-homogeneous. Following diagram depicts a potential multiplexed structure for ODTU2.ts

ODTU2.ts with ODU0 tributary slots

Note: Hence forth, we shall consider ODTU12 and ODTU2.ts for all the demonstrations.

Multiplexing ODTU12 into OPU2

Multiplexing a single ODTU12 into OPU2 will require either one ODU1 tributary time slot or 2 ODU0 tributary time slots. Mapping ODTU12 into OPU2 using ODU1 timeslot is straightforward as it will be one to one mapping between each ODTU12 and ODU1 timeslot.

From BF perspective, it makes more sense to study ODTU12 mapping into OPU2 using ODU0 timeslots.

Single ODTU12 mapping into OPU2 will occupy 2 ODU0 timeslots out of the available 8 within ODU2 frame. But unlike SONET/SDH, these timeslots need not be adjacent. This is accomplished by explicitly mentioning the ODU0 time slots occupied by ODTU12 within OPU2 frame.

ODTU12 is allotted ODU0 slot 1 and 4

A byte of the ODTU12 signal is mapped into a byte of one of two OPU2 1.25G TS #1,4 payload areas. A byte of the ODTU12 overhead is mapped into a TSOH byte within column 16 of the OPU2 1.25G TS #1, 4.

Following figure depicts the payload mapping of ODTU12 payload to OPU2 1.25G TS #1, 4 payloads.

mapping of ODTU12 payload to OPU2 1.25G TS #1, 4 payloads

Odd columns of ODUT12 payload are mapped into OPU2 1.25G TS #1 payload and even columns are mapped into OPU2 1.25G TS #4 payload.

mapping of ODTU12 overhead to OPU2 1.25G TS #1, 4 TSOHs

JOH: Justification Overhead TSOH: Tributary Slot Overhead

Any further bandwidth requirements for ODTU12 will be met in the similar fashion. This ensures that bandwidth allocation is not subjected to either contiguous concatenation or mod n rule thus obviating any probability of BF.

ODTU2.ts mapping into OPU2 1.25G tributary slots

ODTUk.ts permits the underlying multiplexing structure of ODUk to be heterogeneous. It means we can have a combination of lower order ODUks such as ODU0, ODU1 etc. provisioned within single ODUk. An OPU2 has 8 ODU0 timeslots. To configure an ODU1 and an ODU0 we will need 3 ODU0 time slots. Let us assume that we allocate time slots #1 and #4 for ODU1 configuration and time slot #5 for ODU0 configuration Following figure depicts ODU1 payload mapping into 2 ODU0 time slots out of available 8 under ODTU2.ts scheme.

ODU1 payload mapping into 2 ODU0 time slots out of available 8 under ODTU2.ts scheme.

Following figure depicts ODTU overhead mapping into 2 ODU0 time slots out of available 8 under ODTU2.ts scheme. Under ODTU2.ts scheme with 1.25G tributaries, there is a 6 byte long overhead which is copied in row 1, 2 an 3 of column 15 and 16 of the last time slot allocated to this ODTU. Assuming time slot 4 is the last time slot, 6 bytes of ODTU overhead will be copied in the column 15 and 16 of time slot 4.

ODTU Overhead

The remaining OPU2 TSOH bytes are reserved for future international standardization. Once ODU1 is allocated we are left with 6 unallocated time slots. Following figure depicts ODU0 payload mapping into 1 ODU0 time slot out of available 6 under ODTU2.ts scheme.

ODU0 payload mapping into 1 ODU0 time slot

Following figure depicts ODU0 overhead mapping into 1 ODU0 time slot out of available 6 under ODTU2.ts scheme

ODU0 Overhead

In ODTUk.ts scheme too there are no restrictions of contiguous concatenations and mod n

Summary
In the OTN standard following advantages of OTN over SONET/SDH are mentioned

Switching scalability Transparent transport of client signals Higher levels of Tandem connection monitoring Enhanced FEC

Somehow standards dont mention the 5th advantage i.e. OTN by virtue of standard itself obviates any bandwidth fragmentation. This advantage in itself is sufficient to reckon with. BF is avoided by putting lots of flexibility on the selection of time slots while allocating the bandwidth. Unlike SONET/SDH, OTN puts no restrictions of contiguous allocation or mod n while allocating the bandwidth.

Ads by Google

Connect the Unconnected Learn About Cisco & the Future of the Internet. Tomorrow Starts Here! www.Cisco.com/in/Anthem Thermal Switches 0-2000F, industrial, aerospace Control Products, Inc. www.cpi-nj.com FTTH module optical module used in FTTH ONU or low power optical receiver www.sanland-catv.com Home Loan at Lowest EMI Instant Home Loans from HDFC. Apply & Get E-Approved In Minutes. HDFCInstantHomeLoans.com
Related Search

100G Otn10G DWDM10G EthernetADM SDHATM Networks http://electronicdesign.com/communications/transport-networks-shift-sdh-otn

Fig 1. Tandem connection monitoring (TCM) allows the definition of multiple arbitrary pairs of connection monitoring end points so an operator is provided with a single set of alarms and bit-error counts associated with any portion of its network.
1 of 2Enlarge image

Transport protocols have evolved over a very long time, and each generation has inherited many attributes and behaviours from its predecessors. The dominant protocol in the transport network over much of the past two decades has been the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH). Recently, however, the optical transport network (OTN) has taken hold as the protocol of choice. SDH was originally designed to efficiently transport DS1, DS3, and E1 by defining containers of 1.5, 2, and 50 Mbits/s. This fine granularity was well suited for the typical client bandwidths of that time, but it prevented SDH from scaling to efficiently carry larger payloads such as 10-Gigabit Ethernet (10GE). Initially, SDH network elements were connected directly by fibre-optic cables and served as the photonic and physical layers of the open systems interconnect (OSI) protocol stack. Later, the need for increased bandwidth over a single fibre led to the deployment of wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) technology to create an underlying transport network to the existing SDH network infrastructure. This

resulted in service providers needing to operate two separate transport layer networks. Dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) networks transport client data transparently. While SDH technology transparently transports plesiochronous digital hierarchy (PDH) signals, it requires adaptation or partial termination for data signals and for multiplexing lower-rate SDH signals. This causes issues when transporting one service providers SDH signals through another service providers network due to the lack of overhead transparency. The definition of OTN came at a time when all of these issues were well understood. OTN was consequently expressly defined to focus on the transport of larger-bandwidth signals, encompass both DWDM and time division multiplexing (TDM) transport network layers, and provide transparent transport of client signals. SDH Compared To OTN Its no surprise that OTN has many similarities to SDH, as many of its characteristics were taken from previous technologies when SDH was defined. The similarities include:

Framing and scrambling Layers (path, section) Bit-interleaved parity 8 (BIP-8) error monitoring Forward and backward error and alarm indications Communication channels Automatic protection switch (APS) protection signaling Byte multiplexing

Despite all the obvious similarities, there are also some significant differences that result from some lessons learned in the many years of deployment and operation of SDH equipment. Layers SDH is defined to have three layersregenerator section, multiplex section, and pathwhereas OTN includes only the section and path. The multiplex section was defined to facilitate fault isolation and protection. The tandem connection monitoring (TCM) functionality in OTN provides more flexible network fault monitoring and protection and makes the line layer unnecessary.

Frame Structure And Signal Bit Rates Like SDH, OTN has row- and column-oriented frame structures with framing bytes, overhead bytes, and payload areas. Unlike the fixed frame rate and different frame sizes of the various SDH signals, however, the OTN signals have fixed frame sizes and different frame rates. Also, each SDH signal rate is a multiple of four of the next lower rate in the hierarchy (e.g., STM-16 = 4xSTM-4). In the OTN hierarchy, each higher rate is defined so the payload area can carry multiple (usually four) of the next lower signals including all overhead. When overhead is added to this payload area, the resulting multiple is not exactly four. Bit Error Detection BIP-8 monitoring from SDH is largely carried over to OTN. But because of the differences in frame structure, OTN does not suffer from the effect of a single BIP-8 count covering progressively larger numbers of bytes for bigger path signals (e.g., VC-4-4c, VC-4-16c, etc.). Transparency One of the key properties of DWDM networks is their ability to transparently transport clients, including OTN client signals. This means its possible to multiplex OTN signals into higher-rate signals without sacrificing transparency for data, overhead, and timing. SDH transports PDH signals transparently, but it cannot transport other SDH signals without terminating timing and certain overhead. Multi-Operator Networks The management shortcomings of SDH include poor data integrity and fault isolation methods for multi-operator environments. Whenever a particular endto-end connection passes through network elements (NEs) in more than one operator network, it is important for each operator to monitor services between the NEs in its own network. TCM allows the definition of multiple arbitrary pairs of connection monitoring end points so an operator is provided with a single set of alarms and bit-error counts associated with any portion of its network (Fig. 1). Tandem connection was eventually introduced into SDH, but it was cumbersome and not heavily deployed.

Inclusion Of FEC Forward error correction (FEC) is used in transport networks to correct transmission errors that typically occur on long fiber routes. Some SDH equipment with proprietary FEC capabilities (typically for STM-64) has been developed, but deployment is very limited. By contrast, FEC is part of the OTN standard. There also are several proprietary FEC schemes that have better performance than the Reed-Solomon FEC specified in the OTN standard. Mapping And Multiplexing When multiplexing SDH containers into higher-rate signals, the payloads of all containers are mapped to a common time base, and a pointer mechanism is used to locate the frame boundary of each payload. In this manner, the section overhead of all SDH containers is aligned and the actual payloads float with respect to each other. Although various administrative group levels are defined in SDH, the multiplexing is effectively single stage. In OTN, the entire lower-level signal, including overhead and payload, is asynchronously mapped into the payload of the higher-level signal using one of two mechanisms. The first mechanism is the asynchronous mapping procedure (AMP), which allows for small positive or negative frequency offsets of the lower rate signal relative to the higher rate. The second is the generic mapping procedure (GMP), which allows for almost infinite negative frequency offsets of the lower-rate signal relative to the higher rate. While the OTN originally recommended single-stage multiplexing of containers, multi-stage multiplexing is also now permitted (Fig. 2). Typical Equipment Platforms SDH network equipment began primarily with simple terminal multiplexers, which mapped and multiplexed many PDH signals into STM-1, STM-4, and STM16 transport signals. Add/drop multiplexers (ADMs) were then developed to enable ring topologies and linear add/drop chains. The multi-service provisioning platform (MSPP) added capability for a larger variety of client signals such as Ethernet and asynchronous transfer mode (ATM). Lastly, these MSPPs evolved into multi-service transport platforms (MSTPs), which typically included DWDM and/or OTN capabilities.

OTN-capable equipment evolved from both the MSPPs of the SDH network as well as the optical ADMs (OADMs) in the DWDM network. The earliest equipment implemented a digital wrapper function where non-OTN signals were simply mapped into OTN prior to transmission to take advantage of the FEC of the OTN protocol. More recently, the OADM has evolved into a software-reconfigurable version known as the reconfigurable OADM (ROADM). These systems typically have both transponder cards (performing digital wrapper functionality) as well as muxponder cards, which include a multiplexing stage to combine multiple lowerspeed signals into a single OTN signal. The latest transport platform, known as the packet optical transport system (POTS), combines transponder and muxponder functions present in the ROADM with OTN container (i.e., ODUj) switching. In many cases, these systems are also capable of packet switching for services such as Ethernet or MPLS to enable a more flexible transport platform designed to natively handle both circuit and packet switching functions. Deployment Of OTN The deployment of OTN has primarily been for the transport of SDH and 10GE signals. Many recent changes to the OTN standards have broadened functionality to support 40- and 100-Gbit/s operation and added better capability for Gigabit Ethernet and other protocols such as Fibre Channel and video. While there is certainly a market for multiplexing and transporting many low-rate signals (<10 Gbits/s), most OTN deployment will be in the core of the transport network and continue to focus on large-bandwidth pipes. The introduction of OTN switching through development of P-OTS equipment delivers the true networking aspect of OTN and enables a wider set of deployment scenarios and protection options in the network. Despite the linear and ring orientation of SDH networks, it is likely that deployment of OTN equipment will be more focused around a meshed network approach. The planned integration of packet switching capability with OTN switching in P-OTS equipment may also have a significant effect on how OTN equipment is deployed. The Future

While OTN has taken many elements from previous network technologies such as PDH and SDH, it is certainly a significant evolutionary step in transport technology. Service providers around the world have committed to OTN as their transport technology of choice, and much time and energy is being spent on developing new equipment to enable a greatly expanded rollout of OTN into the service provider networks.