draft-ietf-ancp-pon-00.txt | draft-ietf-ancp-pon-01.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Network Working Group Nabil Bitar | Network Working Group Nabil Bitar(ed.) | |||
Internet Draft Verizon | Verizon | |||
Category: Informational | Internet Draft | |||
Expiration Date: April 18, 2011 Sanjay Wadhwa | Intended Status: Informational Sanjay Wadhwa (ed.) | |||
Juniper Networks | Alcatel-Lucent | |||
Expires: January 11, 2012 | ||||
Thomas Haag | ||||
Deutsche Telekom | ||||
October 18, 2010 | Hongyu Li | |||
HuaweiTechnologies | ||||
Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to | July 11, 2011 | |||
PON based Broadband Networks | ||||
draft-ietf-ancp-pon-00.txt | Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to | |||
PON based Broadband Networks | ||||
draft-ietf-ancp-pon-01.txt | ||||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
The purpose of this document is to provide applicability of Access | The purpose of this document is to provide applicability of the | |||
Node Control Mechanism, as described in [ANCP-FRAMEWORK], to PON | Access Node Control Mechanism, as described in [ANCP-FRAMEWORK], | |||
based broadband access. The need for an Access Node Control Mechanism | to PON based broadband access. The need for an Access Node Control | |||
between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node Complex (a | Mechanism between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node | |||
combination of Optical Line Termination (OLT) and Optical Network | Complex (a combination of Optical Line Termination (OLT) and | |||
Termination (ONT) elements), is described in a multi-service | Optical Network Termination (ONT) elements) is described in a | |||
reference architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service- | multi-service reference architecture in order to perform QoS- | |||
related and Subscriber-related operations. The Access Node Control | related, service-related and Subscriber-related operations. The | |||
Mechanism is also extended for interaction between components of the | Access Node Control Mechanism is also extended for interaction | |||
Access Node Complex (OLT and ONT). The Access Node Control mechanism | between components of the Access Node Complex (OLT and ONT). The | |||
will ensure that the transmission of the information does not need to | Access Node Control mechanism will ensure that the transmission of | |||
go through distinct element managers but rather uses a direct device- | information between the NAS and Access Node Complex (ANX) and | |||
device communication. This allows for performing access link related | between the OLT and ONT within an ANX does not need to go through | |||
operations within those network elements to meet performance | distinct element managers but rather uses a direct device-to- | |||
objectives. | device communication and stays on net. This allows for performing | |||
access link related operations within those network elements to | ||||
meet performance objectives. | ||||
Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | ||||
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | ||||
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | ||||
Drafts. | ||||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | Drafts. | |||
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | |||
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. | months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other | |||
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts | ||||
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in | ||||
progress." | ||||
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2011. | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | ||||
Copyright Notice | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 11, 2012. | |||
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright Notice | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | ||||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | ||||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | ||||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | ||||
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | ||||
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | ||||
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | ||||
described in the Simplified BSD License. | ||||
Table of Contents | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | ||||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | ||||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | ||||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with | ||||
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this | ||||
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in | ||||
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without | ||||
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | ||||
1 Specification Requirements ................................... 4 | Table of Contents | |||
1. Specification Requirements ................................. 3 | ||||
2. Introduction................................................ 3 | ||||
3. Terminology ................................................ 5 | ||||
4. Motivation for explicit extension of ANCP to FTTx PON ...... 6 | ||||
5. Reference Model for PON Based Broadband Access Network.......7 | ||||
5.1. Functional Blocks ....................................... 9 | ||||
5.1.1. Home Gateway ........................................... 9 | ||||
5.1.2. PON Access ........................................... 9 | ||||
5.1.3. Access Node Complex .................................... 9 | ||||
5.1.4. Access Node Complex Uplink to the NAS .................. 9 | ||||
5.1.5. Aggregation Network .................................... 9 | ||||
5.1.6. Network Access Server .................................. 10 | ||||
5.1.7. Regional Network ................................... ....10 | ||||
5.2. Access Node Complex Control Reference Architecture Options 10 | ||||
5.2.1. ANCP+OMCI ANX control ................................ 10 | ||||
5.2.2. All-ANCP ANX Control.................................... 12 | ||||
6. Concept of Access Node Control Mechanism for PON based access12 | ||||
7. Multicast ...................................................14 | ||||
7.1. Multicast Conditional Access.............................. 15 | ||||
7.2. Multicast Admission Control .............................. 17 | ||||
7.3. Multicast Accounting .................................... 27 | ||||
8. Remote Connectivity Check .................................. 28 | ||||
9. Access Topology Discovery .................................. 29 | ||||
10. Access Loop Configuration ................................. 30 | ||||
11. ANCP versus OMCI between the OLT and ONT/ONU .............. 33 | ||||
12. IANA Considerations ....................................... 33 | ||||
13. Acknowledgements .......................................... 33 | ||||
14. References ................................................ 34 | ||||
14.1. Normative References .................................... 34 | ||||
14.2. Informative References .................................. 34 | ||||
2 Introduction ................................................. 4 | 1. Specification Requirements | |||
2.1 Terminology ............................................ 5 | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL | |||
3 Reference Architecture for PON Based Broadband Access Network 7 | NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | ||||
RFC 2119. | ||||
3.1 Home Gateway ........................................... 8 | 2. Introduction | |||
3.2 PON Access ............................................. 8 | ||||
3.3 Access Node Complex .................................... 8 | ||||
3.4 Access Node Complex Uplink to the BNG .................. 8 | ||||
3.5 Aggregation Network .................................... 9 | ||||
3.6 Network Access Server .................................. 9 | ||||
3.7 Regional Network ....................................... 9 | ||||
4 Motivation for explicit extension of ANCP to FTTP PON ........ 9 | ||||
5 Concept of Access Node Control Mechanism for PON based access 10 | Passive Optical Networks (PONs) based on BPON and GPON are being | |||
deployed across carrier networks. There are two models for PON | ||||
deployment: Fiber to the building/curb (FTTB/FTTC), and Fiber to the | ||||
Premises (FTTP). In the FTTB/C deployment, the last mile connectivity | ||||
to the subscriber premises is provided over the local Copper loop, | ||||
often using Very High Speed Digital Subscriber line (VDSL). In the | ||||
FTTP case, PON extends to the premises of the subscriber. In | ||||
addition, there are four main PON technologies: (1) Broadband PON | ||||
(BPON), (2) Gigabit PON (GPON), (3) 10-Gigabit PON (XGPON), and (4) | ||||
Ethernet PON (EPON). This document describes the applicability of | ||||
Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) in the context of FTTB/C and FTTP | ||||
deployments, focusing on BPON, GPON and XPON. Architectural | ||||
considerations lead to different ANCP compositions. Therefore, the | ||||
composition of ANCP communication between Access Nodes and Network | ||||
Access Server (NAS) is described using different models. | ||||
6 Multicast .................................................. 12 | BPON, GPON and XPON in FTTP deployments provide large bandwidth in | |||
the first mile, bandwidth that is an order of magnitude larger than | ||||
that provided by xDSL. In the downstream direction, BPON provides 622 | ||||
Mbps per PON while GPON provides 2.4 Gbps, and XPON provides 10 Gbps. | ||||
In residential deployments, the number of homes sharing the same PON | ||||
is limited by the technology and the network engineering rules. | ||||
Typical deployments have 32 homes per PON. | ||||
6.1 Multicast Conditional Access .......................... 12 | The motive behind BPON, GPON and XPON deployment is providing triple- | |||
6.2 Multicast Admission Control ........................... 15 | play services over IP: voice, video and data. Voice is generally low | |||
6.3 Multicast Accounting .................................. 26 | bandwidth but has low-delay, low-jitter, and low packet-loss | |||
7 Remote Connectivity Check ................................... 27 | requirements. Data services (e.g., Internet services) often require | |||
high throughput and can tolerate medium latency. Data services may | ||||
include multimedia content download such as video. However, in that | ||||
case, the video content is not required to be real-time and/or it is | ||||
low quality video. Video services, on the other hand, are targeted to | ||||
deliver Standard Definition or High Definition video content in real- | ||||
time or near-real time, depending on the service model. Standard | ||||
Definition content using MPEG2 encoding requires on the order of 3.75 | ||||
Mbps per stream while High definition content using MPEG2 encoding | ||||
requires on the order of 15-19 Mbps depending on the level of | ||||
compression used. Video services require low-jitter and low-packet | ||||
loss with low start-time latency. There are two types of video | ||||
services: on demand and broadcast (known also as liner programming | ||||
content). While linear programming content can be provided over | ||||
Layer1 on the PON, the focus in this document is on delivering linear | ||||
programming content over IP to the subscriber, using IP multicast. | ||||
Video on demand is also considered for delivery to the subscriber | ||||
over IP using a unicast session model. | ||||
8 Access Topology Discovery ................................... 28 | Providing simultaneous triple-play services over IP with unicast | |||
video and multicast video, VoIP and data requires an architecture | ||||
that preserves the quality of service of each service. Fundamental to | ||||
this architecture is ensuring that the video content (unicast and | ||||
multicast) delivered to the subscriber does not exceed the bandwidth | ||||
Allocated to the subscriber for video services. Architecture models | ||||
often ensure that data is guaranteed a minimum bandwidth and that | ||||
VoIP is guaranteed its own bandwidth. In addition, QoS control across | ||||
services is often performed at a Network Access Server (NAS), often | ||||
referred to as Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) for subscriber | ||||
management, per subscriber and shared link resources. Efficient | ||||
multicast video services require enabling multicast services in the | ||||
access network between the subscriber and the subscriber management | ||||
platform. In the FTTP/B/C PON environment, this implies enabling IP | ||||
multicast on the Access Node (AN) complex composed of the Optical | ||||
Network Terminal (ONT) or Unit (ONU) and Optical Line Terminal (OLT), | ||||
as applicable. This is as opposed to Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) | ||||
deployments where multicast is enabled on the DSL Access Multiplexer | ||||
(DSLAM) only. The focus in this document will be on the ANCP | ||||
requirements needed for coordinated admission control of unicast and | ||||
multicast video in FTTP/B/C PON environments between the AN complex | ||||
(ANX) and the NAS, specifically focusing on bandwidth dedicated for | ||||
multicast and shared bandwidth between multicast and unicast. | ||||
9 Security Considerations ..................................... 28 | [ANCP-FRAMEWORK] provides the framework and requirements for | |||
coordinated admission control between a NAS and an AN with special | ||||
focus on DSL deployments. This document extends that framework and | ||||
the related requirements to explicitly address PON deployments. | ||||
10 Differences in ANCP applicability between DSL and PON ....... 29 | 3. Terminology | |||
11 ANCP versus OMCI between the OLT and ONT .................... 30 | - PON (Passive Optical Network): a point-to-multipoint fiber to the | |||
premises network architecture in which unpowered splitters are used | ||||
to enable the splitting of an optical signal from a central office on | ||||
a single optical fiber to multiple premises. Up to 32-128 may be | ||||
supported on the same PON. A PON configuration consists of an Optical | ||||
Line Terminal (OLT) at the Service Provider's CO and a number of | ||||
Optical Network Units or Terminals (ONU/ONT) near end users, with an | ||||
optical distribution network (ODN) composed of fibers and splitters | ||||
between them. A PON configuration reduces the amount of fiber and CO | ||||
equipment required compared with point-to-point architectures. | ||||
12 IANA Considerations ......................................... 31 | - Access Node Complex (ANX): The Access Node Complex is composed of | |||
two geographically separated functional elements OLT and ONU/ONT. The | ||||
general term Access Node Complex (ANX) will be used when describing a | ||||
functionality which does not depend on the physical location but | ||||
rather on the "black box" behavior of OLT and ONU/ONT. | ||||
13 Acknowledgements ............................................ 31 | -Optical Line Terminal (OLT): is located in the Service provider's | |||
central office (CO). It terminates and aggregates multiple PONs | ||||
(providing fiber access to multiple premises or neighborhoods) on the | ||||
subscriber side, and interfaces with the Network Access server (NAS) | ||||
that provides subscriber management. | ||||
14 References .................................................. 31 | - Optical Network Terminal (ONT): terminates PON on the network side | |||
and provides PON adaptation. The subscriber side interface and the | ||||
location of the ONT are dictated by the type of network deployment. | ||||
For a Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) deployment (with Fiber all the way | ||||
to the apartment or living unit), ONT has Ethernet (FE/GE/MoCA) | ||||
connectivity with the Home Gateway (HGW)/Customer Premise Equipment | ||||
(CPE). In certain cases, one ONT may provide connections to more than | ||||
one Home Gateway at the same time. | ||||
14.1 Normative References .................................. 31 | -Optical Network Unit (ONU): A generic term denoting a device that | |||
14.2 Informative References ................................ 31 | terminates any one of the distributed (leaf) endpoints of an Optical | |||
Author's Addresses ............................................. 32 | Distribution Node (ODN), implements a PON protocol, and adapts PON | |||
PDUs to subscriber service interfaces. In case of an MDU multi- | ||||
dwelling or multi-tenant unit), a multi-subscriber ONU typically | ||||
resides in the basement or a wiring closet (FTTB case), and has | ||||
FE/GE/Ethernet over native Ethernet link or over xDSL (typically | ||||
VDSL) connectivity with each CPE at the subscriber premises. In the | ||||
case where fiber is terminated outside the premises (neighborhood or | ||||
curb side) on an ONT/ONU, the last-leg-premises connections could be | ||||
via existing or new Copper, with xDSL physical layer (typically | ||||
VDSL). In this case, the ONU effectively is a "PON fed DSLAM". | ||||
1 Specification Requirements | -Network Access Server (NAS): Network element which aggregates | |||
subscriber traffic from a number of ANs or ANXs. The NAS is often an | ||||
injection point for policy management and IP QoS in the access | ||||
network. It is also referred to as Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) or | ||||
Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS). | ||||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL | -Home Gateway (HGW): Network element that connects subscriber devices | |||
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" | to the AN or ANX and the access network. In case of xDSL, the Home | |||
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. | Gateway is an xDSL network termination that could either operate as a | |||
Layer 2 bridge or as a Layer 3 router. In the latter case, such a | ||||
device is also referred to as a Routing Gateway (RG). In the case of | ||||
PON, it is often a Layer3 routing device with the ONT performing PON | ||||
termination. | ||||
2 Introduction | -PON-Customer-ID: This is an identifier which uniquely identifies the | |||
ANX and the access loop logical port on the ANX to the subscriber | ||||
(customer) premises, and is used in any interaction between NAS and | ||||
ANX that relates to access-loops. Logically it is composed of | ||||
information containing identification of the OLT (the OLT may be | ||||
physically directly connected to the NAS), the PON port on the OLT, | ||||
the ONT/ONU, and the port on the ONT/ONU connecting to the subscriber | ||||
HGW. When acting as a DHCP relay agent, the OLT can encode PON- | ||||
Customer-ID in the "Agent-Circuit-Identifier" Sub-option in Option-82 | ||||
of the DHCP messages. | ||||
Passive Optical Networks (PONs) based on BPON and GPON are being | 4. Motivation for explicit extension of ANCP to FTTx PON | |||
deployed across carrier networks. There are two models for PON | ||||
deployment: Fiber to the curb (FTTC), and Fiber to the Premise | ||||
(FTTP). In the FTTC deployment, the last mile connectivity is | ||||
provided over the local loop using Very High Speed DSL. In the FTTP | ||||
case, PON extends to the premise. In addition, there are three main | ||||
PON technologies: (1) Broadband PON (BPON), (2) Gigabit PON (GPON), | ||||
and (3) Ethernet PON (EPON). The focus in the document will be on | ||||
BPON and GPON in the context of FTTP deployment. | ||||
BPON and GPON in FTTP deployments provide large bandwidth in the | The fundamental difference between PON and DSL is that a PON is an | |||
first mile, bandwidth that is an order of magnitude larger than that | optical broadcast network by definition. That is, at the PON level, | |||
provided by xDSL. In the downstream direction BPON provides 622 Mbps | every ONT on the same PON sees the same signal. However, the ONT | |||
per PON while GPON provides 2.4 Gbps. In residential deployments, the | filters only those PON frames addressed to it. Encryption is used on | |||
number of homes sharing the same PON is limited by the technology and | the PON to prevent eavesdropping. | |||
the network engineering rules. Typical deployments have 32 homes per | ||||
PON. | ||||
The motive behind BPON and GPON deployment is providing triple-play | The broadcast PON capability is very suitable to delivering multicast | |||
services over IP: voice, video and data. Voice is generally low | content to connected premises, maximizing bandwidth usage efficiency | |||
bandwidth but has low-delay, low-jitter, and low packet-loss | on the PON. Similar to DSL deployments, enabling multicast on the | |||
requirements. Data services (e.g., Internet services) often require | Access Node Complex (ANX) provides for bandwidth use efficiency on | |||
high throughput and can tolerate medium latency. Data services may | the path between the Access Node and the NAS as well as improves the | |||
include multimedia content download such as video. However, in that | scalability of the NAS by reducing the amount of multicast traffic | |||
case, the video content is not required to be real-time and/or it is | being replicated at the NAS. However, the broadcast capability on the | |||
low quality video. Video services, on the other hand, are targeted to | ||||
deliver Standard Definition or High Definition video content in real- | ||||
time or near-real time, depending on the service model. Standard | ||||
Definition content using MPEG2 encoding requires on the order of 3.75 | ||||
Mbps per stream while High definition content using MPEG2 encoding | ||||
requires on the order of 15-19 Mbps depending on the level of | ||||
compression used. Video services require low-jitter and low-packet | ||||
loss with low start-time latency. There are two types of video | ||||
services: on demand and broadcast (known also as liner programming | ||||
content). While linear programming content can be provided over | ||||
Layer1 on the PON, the focus in this document is on delivering linear | ||||
programming content over IP to the home, using IP multicast. Video on | ||||
demand is also considered for delivery over IP using a unicast | ||||
session model. | ||||
Providing simultaneous triple-play services over IP with unicast | PON enables the AN (OLT) to send one copy on the PON as opposed to N | |||
video and multicast video, VoIP and data requires an architecture | copies of a multicast channel on the PON serving N premises being | |||
that preserves the quality of service of each service. Fundamental to | receivers. The PON multicast capability can be leveraged in the case | |||
this architecture is ensuring the video content (unicast and | of GPON and BPON as discussed in this document. | |||
multicast) delivered to the user does not exceed the bandwidth | ||||
allocated to the user for video services. Architecture models often | ||||
ensure that data is guaranteed a minimum bandwidth and that VoIP is | ||||
guaranteed its own bandwidth. In addition, QoS control across | ||||
services is often performed at a Network Access Server (NAS), often | ||||
referred to as Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) for subscriber | ||||
management, per subscriber and shared link resources. Efficient | ||||
multicast video services require enabling multicast services in the | ||||
access network between the subscriber and the subscriber management | ||||
platform. In the FTTP PON environment, this implies enabling IP | ||||
multicast on the Access Node (AN) complex composed of the ONT and | ||||
OLT, as applicable. This is as opposed to DSL deployments where | ||||
multicast is enabled on the DSLAM only. The focus in this document | ||||
will be on the ANCP requirements needed for coordinated admission | ||||
control of unicast and multicast video in FTTP PON environments | ||||
between the AN complex and the NAS, specifically focusing on | ||||
bandwidth dedicated for multicast and shared bandwidth between | ||||
multicast and unicast. | ||||
[ANCP-FRAMEWORK] provides the framework and requirements for | Fundamental to leveraging the broadcast capability on the PON for | |||
coordinated admission control between a NAS and an AN with special | multicast delivery is the ability to assign a single encryption key | |||
focus on DSL deployments. This document proposes the extension of | for all PON frames carrying all multicast channels or a key per set | |||
that framework and the related requirements to explicitly address | of multicast channels that correspond to service packages, or none. | |||
BPON and GPON deployments. | It should be noted that the ONT can be a multi-Dwelling Unit (MDU) | |||
ONT with multiple Ethernet ports, each connected to a living unit. | ||||
Thus, the ONT must not only be able to receive a multicast frame, but | ||||
must also be able to forward that frame only to the Ethernet port | ||||
with receivers for the corresponding channel. | ||||
2.1 Terminology | In order to implement triple-play service delivery with necessary | |||
"quality-of-experience", including end-to-end bandwidth optimized | ||||
multicast video delivery, there needs to be tight coordination | ||||
between the NAS and the ANX. This interaction needs to be near real- | ||||
time as services are requested via application or network level | ||||
signaling by broadband subscribers. ANCP as defined in [ANCP- | ||||
FRAMEWORK] for DSL based networks is very suitable to realize a | ||||
control protocol (with transactional exchange capabilities), between | ||||
PON enabled ANX and the NAS, and also between the components | ||||
comprising the ANX i.e. between OLT and the ONT. Typical use cases | ||||
for ANCP in PON environment include the following: | ||||
o PON (Passive Optical Network): a point-to-multipoint fiber to the | - Access topology discovery | |||
premises network architecture in which unpowered splitters are | ||||
used to enable the splitting of an optical signal from a central | ||||
office on a single optical fiber to multiple premises. Up to 32- | ||||
128 may be supported on the same PON. A PON configuration consists | ||||
of an Optical Line Termination (OLT) at the Service Provider's CO | ||||
and a number of Optical Network Units or Terminals (ONU/ONT) near | ||||
end users, with an optical distribution network (ODN) composed of | ||||
fibers and splitters between them. A PON configuration reduces the | ||||
amount of fiber and CO equipment required compared with point to | ||||
point architectures. | ||||
o Access Node Complex (ANX): The Access Node is decomposed by two | - Access Loop Configuration | |||
geographical functions, performed by OLT and ONU/ONT. The general | ||||
term Access Node (ANX) will be used when describing a | ||||
functionality which does not depend on the physical location but | ||||
rather on the "black box" behaviour of OLT and ONU/ONT. | ||||
o Optical Line Terminal (OLT): is located in the Service | - Multicast | |||
provider's central office. It terminates and aggregates | ||||
multiple PONs (providing fiber access to multiple premises or | ||||
neighborhoods) on the user side, and interfaces with the | ||||
service element (NAS) providing subscriber management. | ||||
o Optical Network Terminal (ONT): terminates PON on the network | - Optimized multicast delivery | |||
side and provides PON adaptation. The user side interface and | ||||
the location of the ONT is dictated by the type of network | ||||
deployment. For a Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) deployment | ||||
(with Fiber all the way to the apartment or living unit), ONT | ||||
has Ethernet (FE/GE/MoCA) connectivity with the Home Gateway | ||||
(HGW)/Customer Premise Equipment (CPE). In case of an MDU | ||||
(multi-dwelling or multi-tenant unit), a multi-subscriber ONU | ||||
typically resides in the basement or a wiring closet, and has | ||||
FE/GE/Ethernet over VDSL connectivity with each CPE. In the | ||||
case where fiber is terminated outside the premise | ||||
(neighborhood or curb side) on an ONT/ONU, the last-leg- | ||||
premise connections could be via existing or new Copper, with | ||||
xDSL physical layer (typically VDSL). In this case, the | ||||
Access Node (OLT & ONT together) effectively is a "PON fed | ||||
DSLAM". | ||||
o Network Access Server (NAS): Network element which aggregates | - Unified video resource control | |||
subscriber traffic from a number of ANs or ANXs. The NAS is often | ||||
an injection point for policy management and IP QoS in the access | ||||
network. It is also referred to as Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) | ||||
or Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS). | ||||
o Home Gateway (HGW): Network element that connects subscriber | - NAS based provisioning of ANX | |||
devices to the AN or ANX and the access network. In case of DSL, | ||||
the Home Gateway is a DSL network termination that could either | ||||
operate as a Layer 2 bridge or as a Layer 3 router. In the latter | ||||
case, such a device is also referred to as a Routing Gateway (RG). | ||||
In the case of PON, it is often a Layer3 routing device with the | ||||
ONT performing PON termination. | ||||
o PON-Customer-ID: This is an identifier which uniquely identifies | - Remote connectivity check | |||
the ANX and the access loop logical port on the ANX to the | 5. Reference Model for PON Based Broadband Access Network | |||
customer premise, and is used in any interaction between NAS and | ||||
ANX that relates to access-loops. Logically it is composed of | ||||
information containing identification of the OLT (the OLT may be | ||||
physically directly connected to the NAS), the PON port on the | ||||
OLT, the ONT, and the port on the ONT connecting to the customer | ||||
HGW. When acting as a DHCP relay agent, the OLT can encode PON- | ||||
Customer-ID in the "Agent-Circuit-Identifier" Sub-option in | ||||
Option-82 of the DHCP messages. | ||||
3 Reference Architecture for PON Based Broadband Access Network | An overall end-to-end reference architecture of a PON access network | |||
is depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2 with ONT serving a single HGW, | ||||
and ONT/ONU serving multiples HGWs, respectively. An OLT may provide | ||||
FTTP and FTTB/C access at the same time but most likely not on the | ||||
same PON port. Specifically, the following PON cases are addressed in | ||||
the context of this reference architecture: | ||||
The reference architecture used in this document is based on Ethernet | - BPON with Ethernet uplink to the NAS and ATM on the PON side. | |||
aggregation for both of BPON and GPON. Specifically, the following | ||||
cases are addressed: | ||||
o BPON with Ethernet uplink to the BNG and ATM on the PON side. | - GPON/XPON with Ethernet uplink to the NAS and Ethernet on the | |||
PON | ||||
side | ||||
o GPON with Ethernet uplink to the BNG and Ethernet on the PON | In case of an Ethernet aggregation network that supports new QoS- | |||
side. | enabled IP services (including Ethernet multicast replication), the | |||
architecture builds on the reference architecture specified in the | ||||
Broadband Forum (BBF) [TR-101]. The Ethernet aggregation network | ||||
between a NAS and an OLT may be degenerated to one or more direct | ||||
physical Ethernet links. | ||||
In case of an Ethernet aggregation network that supports new QoS- | Given the industry move towards Ethernet as the new access and | |||
enabled IP services (including Ethernet multicast replication), | aggregation technology for triple play services, the primary focus | |||
the architecture builds on the reference architecture specified in | throughout this document is on GPON/XPON and BPON with Ethernet | |||
DSL Forum [TR-101]. The Ethernet aggregation network between a NAS | between the NAS and the OLT. | |||
and an OLT may be degenerated to one or more direct physical | ||||
Ethernet links. | ||||
Given the industry's move towards Ethernet as the new access and | Access Customer | |||
aggregation technology for triple play services, the primary focus | <----------Aggregation-------><-Prem-> | |||
throughout this document is on GPON and BPON with Ethernet between | Network Network | |||
the BNG and the OLT. Figures 1 and 2 depict an end-to-end | ||||
broadband network with PON access. | ||||
Access Customer | +------------------+ | |||
<----------Aggregation---------><-Prem-> | | Access Node | | |||
Network Network | | Complex (ANX) | | |||
+---------+ +---+ +-----+ |+---+ +---+ | +---+ | ||||
| | +-|NAS|--|Eth |--||OLT|-<PON>-|ONT|-|--|HGW| | ||||
NSP---+Regional | | +---+ |Agg | |+---+ +---+ | +---+ | ||||
|Broadband| | +---+ +-----+ +------------------+ | ||||
|Network |-+-|NAS| | | ||||
ASP---+ | | +---+ | | ||||
| | | +---+ | | ||||
+---------+ +-|NAS| | +---+ +---+ | ||||
+---| +-<PON>-|ONT|--|HGW| | ||||
| +---+ +---+ | ||||
| | ||||
| +---+ +---+ | ||||
+---|ONT|--|HGW| | ||||
+---+ +---+ | ||||
HGW : Home Gateway | ||||
NAS : Network Access Server | ||||
PON : Passive Optical Network | ||||
OLT : Optical Line Terminal | ||||
ONT : Optical Network Terminal | ||||
+----------------------+ | Figure 1. Access Network with PON | |||
| Access Node (ANX) | | ||||
+---------+ +---+ +-----+ |+---+ +-------+ | +---+ | ||||
| | +-|NAS|--|Eth |--||OLT|-<PON>-|ONT/ONU|-|--|HGW| | ||||
NSP---+Regional | | +---+ |Agg | |+---+ +-------+ | +---+ | ||||
|Broadband| | +---+ +-----+ +----------------------+ | ||||
|Network |-+-|NAS| | | ||||
ASP---+ | | +---+ | | ||||
| | | +---+ | | ||||
+---------+ +-|NAS| | +-------+ +---+ | ||||
+---| +-<PON>-|ONT/ONU|--|HGW| | ||||
| +-------+ +---+ | ||||
............. | ||||
| +-------+ +---+ | ||||
+---|ONT/ONU|--|HGW| | ||||
+-------+ +---+ | ||||
HGW : Home Gateway | ||||
NAS : Network Access Server | ||||
PON : Passive Optical Network | ||||
OLT : Optical Line Terminal | ||||
ONT/ONU : Optical Network Terminal/Unit | ||||
Figure 1. Access Network with PON | ||||
FE/GE/VDSL | FE/GE/VDSL | |||
+----+ +---+ | +---+ +---+ | |||
+-----------------+ | |--|HGW| | +----------------+ | |-|HGW| | |||
+---------+ +-----+ | +-----+ +----+ | | | +---+ | +---------+ +-----+ | +-----+ +----+| | | +---+ | |||
| | +-|NAS |--| |Eth |--| OLT| |-<PON>-| | +---+ | | | +-|NAS |--| |Eth |--|OLT||-<PON>- | | | |||
NSP---+Regional | | +-----+ | |Agg | | | | | |ONT/|--|HGW| | NSP---+Regional | | +-----+ | |Agg | | || | |ONT| +---+ | |||
|Broadband| | +-----+ | +-----+ +----+ | | |ONU | +---+ | | | | | | | | || | | or|-|HGW| | |||
|Network |-+-|NAS | +-----------------+ | | | . | |Broadband| | +-----+ | +-----+ +----+| | |ONU| +---+ | |||
ASP---+ | | +-----+ | | | +---+ | |Network |-+-|NAS | +----------------+ | | | | |||
| | | +-----+ | | |--|HGW| | ASP---+ | | +-----+ | | | +---+ | |||
+---------+ +-|NAS | | +----+ +---+ | | | | +-----+ | | |-|HGW| | |||
+-----+ | | +---------+ +-|NAS | | +---+ +---+ | |||
| +---+ +---+ | +-----+ | | |||
+--|ONT|--|HGW| | | +---+ +---+ | |||
+---+ +---+ | +--|ONT|--|HGW| | |||
Figure 2. FTTP/FTTC with multi-subscriber ONU serving MTUs/MDUs | +---+ +---+ | |||
Figure 2. FTTP/FTTB/C with multi-subscriber ONT/ONU serving | ||||
MTUs/MDUs | ||||
The following sections describe the functional blocks and network | ||||
segments in the PON access reference architecture. | ||||
3.1 Home Gateway | 5.1. Functional Blocks | |||
The Home Gateway (HGW) connects the different Customer Premises | 5.1.1. Home Gateway | |||
Equipment (CPE) to the ANX and the access network. In case of PON, | ||||
the HGW is a layer 3 router. In this case, the HGW performs DHCP | ||||
assignment to devices within the home, and performs Network Address | ||||
and Port Translation (NAPT) between the LAN and WAN side. In case of | ||||
FTTP, the HGW connects to the ONT over an Ethernet interface. That | ||||
Ethernet interface could be a physical port or over another medium. | ||||
In case of FTTP, it is possible to have a single box GPON CPE | ||||
solution, where the ONT encompasses the HGW functionality as well | ||||
as the GPON adaptation function. | ||||
3.2 PON Access | The Home Gateway (HGW) connects the different Customer Premises | |||
Equipment (CPE) to the ANX and the access network. In case of PON, | ||||
the HGW is a layer 3 router. In this case, the HGW performs IP | ||||
configuration of devices within the home via DHCP, and performs | ||||
Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) between the LAN and WAN | ||||
side. In case of FTTP/B/C, the HGW connects to the ONT/ONU over an | ||||
Ethernet interface. That Ethernet interface could be over an Ethernet | ||||
physical port or over another medium. In case of FTTP, it is possible | ||||
to have a single box GPON CPE solution, where the ONT encompasses the | ||||
HGW functionality as well as the GPON adaptation function. | ||||
PON access is composed of the ONT and OLT. PON ensures physical | 5.1.2. PON Access | |||
connectivity between the ONT at the customer premises and the OLT. | ||||
PON framing can be BPON (in case of BPON) or GPON (in case of GPON). | ||||
The protocol encapsulation on BPON is based on multi-protocol | ||||
encapsulation over AAL5, defined in [RFC2684]. This covers PPP over | ||||
Ethernet (PPPoE, defined in [RFC2516]), or bridged IP (IPoE). The | ||||
protocol encapsulation on GPON is always IPoE. In all cases, the | ||||
connection between the AN (OLT) and the NAS (BNG) is assumed to be | ||||
Ethernet in this document. | ||||
3.3 Access Node Complex | PON access is composed of the ONT/ONU and OLT. PON ensures physical | |||
connectivity between the ONT/ONU at the customer and the OLT. PON | ||||
framing can be BPON (in case of BPON) or GPON (in case of GPON). The | ||||
protocol encapsulation on BPON is based on multi-protocol | ||||
encapsulation over AAL5, defined in [RFC2684]. This covers PPP over | ||||
Ethernet (PPPoE, defined in [RFC2516]), or bridged IP (IPoE). The | ||||
protocol encapsulation on GPON is always IPoE. In all cases, the | ||||
connection between the AN | ||||
(OLT) and the NAS (or BNG) is assumed to be Ethernet in this | ||||
document. | ||||
This is composed of OLT and ONT and is defined in section 2.1. | 5.1.3. Access Node Complex | |||
3.4 Access Node Complex Uplink to the BNG | This is composed of OLT and ONT/ONU and is defined in section 3. | |||
The ANX uplink connects the OLT to the NAS. The fundamental | 5.1.4. Access Node Complex Uplink to the NAS | |||
requirements for the ANX uplink are to provide traffic aggregation, | ||||
Class of Service distinction and customer separation and | ||||
traceability. This can be achieved using an ATM or an Ethernet based | ||||
technology. The focus in this document is on Ethernet as stated | ||||
earlier. | ||||
3.5 Aggregation Network | The ANX uplink connects the OLT to the NAS. The fundamental | |||
requirements for the ANX uplink are to provide traffic aggregation, | ||||
Class of Service distinction and customer separation and | ||||
traceability. This can be achieved using an ATM or an Ethernet based | ||||
technology. The focus in this document is on Ethernet as stated | ||||
earlier. | ||||
The aggregation network provides traffic aggregation towards the NAS. | 5.1.5. Aggregation Network | |||
The Aggregation network is assumed to be Ethernet in this document. | ||||
3.6 Network Access Server | The aggregation network provides traffic aggregation towards the NAS. | |||
The Aggregation network is assumed to be Ethernet in this document. | ||||
The NAS is a network device which aggregates multiplexed Subscriber | 5.1.6. Network Access Server | |||
traffic from a number of ANXs. The NAS plays a central role in per- | ||||
subscriber policy enforcement and QoS. It is often referred to as a | ||||
Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) or Broadband Remote Access Server | ||||
(BRAS). A detailed definition of the NAS is given in [RFC2881]. The | ||||
NAS interfaces to the aggregation network by means of 802.1Q or 802.1 | ||||
Q-in-Q Ethernet interfaces, and towards the Regional Network by means | ||||
of transport interfaces (e.g. GigE, PPP over SONET). The NAS | ||||
functionality corresponds to the BNG functionality described in DSL | ||||
Forum TR-101. In addition to this, the NAS supports the Access Node | ||||
Control functionality defined for the respective use cases in this | ||||
document. | ||||
3.7 Regional Network | The NAS is a network device which aggregates multiplexed Subscriber | |||
traffic from a number of ANXs. The NAS plays a central role in per- | ||||
subscriber policy enforcement and QoS. It is often referred to as a | ||||
Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) or Broadband Remote Access Server | ||||
(BRAS). A detailed definition of the NAS is given in [RFC2881]. The | ||||
NAS interfaces to the aggregation network by means of 802.1Q or 802.1 | ||||
Q-in-Q Ethernet interfaces, and towards the Regional Network by means | ||||
of transport interfaces (e.g. GigE, PPP over SONET). The NAS | ||||
functionality corresponds to the BNG functionality described in | ||||
BroadBand Forum (BBF) TR-101 [TR-101]. In addition, the NAS supports | ||||
the Access Node Control functionality defined for the respective use | ||||
cases in this document. | ||||
The Regional Network connects one or more NAS and associated Access | 5.1.7. Regional Network | |||
Networks to Network Service Providers (NSPs) and Application Service | ||||
Providers (ASPs). The NSP authenticates access and provides and | ||||
manages the IP address to Subscribers. It is responsible for overall | ||||
service assurance and includes Internet Service Providers (ISPs).The | ||||
ASP provides application services to the application Subscriber | ||||
(gaming, video, content on demand, IP telephony etc.). The NAS can | ||||
be part of the NSP network. Similarly, the NSP can be the ASP. | ||||
4 Motivation for explicit extension of ANCP to FTTP PON | The Regional Network connects one or more NAS and associated Access | |||
Networks to Network Service Providers (NSPs) and Application Service | ||||
Providers (ASPs). The NSP authenticates access and provides and | ||||
manages the IP address to Subscribers. It is responsible for overall | ||||
service assurance and includes Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The | ||||
ASP provides application services to the application Subscriber | ||||
(gaming, video, content on demand, IP telephony etc.). The NAS can be | ||||
part of the NSP network. Similarly, the NSP can be the ASP. | ||||
The fundamental difference between PON and DSL is that a PON is an | 5.2. Access Node Complex Control Reference Architecture Options | |||
optical broadcast network by definition. That is, at the PON level, | ||||
every ONT on the same PON sees the same signal. However, the ONT | ||||
filters only those PON frames addressed to it. Encryption is used on | ||||
the PON to prevent eavesdropping. | ||||
The broadcast PON capability is very suitable to delivering multicast | Section 4 details the differences between xDSL access and PON access | |||
content to connected premises, maximizing bandwidth usage efficiency | and the implication of these differences on DSLAM control vs. OLT and | |||
on the PON. Similar to DSL deployments, enabling multicast on the | ONT/ONU (access node complex (ANX)) control. The following sections | |||
Access Node Complex (ANX) provides for bandwidth use efficiency on | describe two reference models: (1) ANCP+OMCI ANX control, and (2) | |||
the path between the Access Node and the NAS as well as improves the | all-ANCP ANX control. That is, the two models differ in the ONT/ONU | |||
scalability of the NAS by reducing the amount of multicast traffic | control within the ANX. Implementations, out of the scope of this | |||
being replicated at the NAS. However, the broadcast capability on the | document, may choose to implement one or the other based on the | |||
PON enables the AN (OLT) to send one copy on the PON as opposed to N | ONT/ONU type and the capabilities of the ONT/ONU and OLT. It is | |||
copies of a multicast channel on the PON serving N premises being | possible for an OLT or an OLT PON port to connect to ONTs/ONUs with | |||
receivers. The PON multicast capability can be leveraged in the case | different capabilities and for these two models to co-exist on the | |||
of GPON and BPON as discussed in this document. | same OLT and same PON. Section 11 describes the differences between | |||
OMCI and ANCP in controlling the ONU/ONT. | ||||
Fundamental to leveraging the broadcast capability on the PON for | OMCI is designed as a protocol between the OLT and ONT/ONU. It | |||
multicast delivery is the ability to assign a single encryption key | enables the OLT to configure and administer capabilities on the | |||
for all PON frames carrying all multicast channels or a key per set | ONT/ONU in BPON, GPON and XPON. ANCP is designed as a protocol | |||
of multicast channels that correspond to service packages, or none. | between the NAS and access node. It enables the NAS to enforce | |||
It should be noted that the ONT can be a multi-Dwelling Unit (MDU) | dynamic policies on the access node, and the access node to report | |||
ONT with multiple Ethernet ports, each connected to a living unit. | events to the NAS among other functions. | |||
Thus, the ONT must not only be able to receive a multicast frame, but | ||||
must also be able to forward that frame only to the Ethernet port | ||||
with receivers for the corresponding channel. | ||||
In order to implement triple-play service delivery with necessary | 5.2.1. ANCP+OMCI ANX control | |||
"quality-of-experience", including end-to-end bandwidth optimized | Figure 3 depicts the reference model for ANCP+OMCI ANX control. In | |||
multicast video delivery, there needs to be tight coordination | this model, ANCP is enabled between the NAS and a connected OLT, and | |||
between the NAS and the ANX. This interaction needs to be near real- | OMCI is enabled between the OLT and an attached ONT/ONU. NAS | |||
time as services are requested via application or network level | communicates with the ANX via ANCP. The OLT acts as an ANCP/OMCI | |||
signaling by broadband subscribers. ANCP as defined in [ANCP- | gateway for communicating necessary events and policies between the | |||
FRAMEWORK] for DSL based networks is very suitable to realize a | OLT and ONT/ONU within the ANX and for communicating relevant | |||
control protocol (with transactional exchange capabilities), between | policies and events between the ONT/ONU and the NAS. The | |||
PON enabled ANX and the NAS, and also between the components | functionality performed by the OLT as ANCP/OMCI gateway will be | |||
comprising the ANX i.e. between OLT and the ONT. Typical use cases | application dependent (e.g., multicast control, topology discovery) | |||
for ANCP in PON environment include the following: | and should be specified in a related specification. It should be | |||
noted that some applications are expected to require extensions. Such | ||||
extensions are expected to outside of ANCP scope, and may need to be | ||||
defined by the ITU-T. It should be noted that OMCI, in addition to | ||||
configuration and administration, provides the capability to report | ||||
status changes on an ONT/ONU with AVC (Attribute Value Change) | ||||
notifications. When ONT/ONU's DSL or Ethernet UNI attributes change, | ||||
a related ME (management Entity) will send a corresponding | ||||
notification (AVC) to the OLT. The OLT interworks such notification | ||||
into an ANCP report and sends it to the connected NAS via the ANCP | ||||
session between the OLT and the NAS. As the ANCP report contains | ||||
information of ONT/ONU's UNI and OLT's PON port, NAS can obtain | ||||
accurate information of access topology. | ||||
o Multicast | +----------------------+ | |||
| ANX | | ||||
+---------+ +---+ +-----+ |+---+ +-------+ | +---+ | ||||
| | +-|NAS|--|Eth |--||OLT|-<PON>-|ONU/ONT|-|-|HGW| | ||||
NSP---+Regional | | +---+ |Agg | |+---+ +-------+ | +---+ | ||||
|Broadband| | +---+ +-----+ +----------------------+ | ||||
|Network |-+-|NAS| | | ||||
ASP---+ | | +---+ | | ||||
| | | +---+ | | ||||
+---------+ +-|NAS| | +-------+ +---+ | ||||
+---| +-<PON>-|ONU/ONT|-|HGW| | ||||
| +-------+ +---+ | ||||
............. | ||||
| +---+ +---+ | ||||
+-----|ONT|-|HGW| | ||||
+---+ +---+ | ||||
ANCP OMCI | ||||
+<-------------->+<------------------->+ | ||||
o Optimized multicast delivery | HGW: Home Gateway | |||
NAS: Network Access Server | ||||
PON: Passive Optical Network | ||||
OLT: Optical Line Terminal | ||||
ONT: Optical Network Terminal | ||||
ONU: Optical Network Unit | ||||
Figure 3: Access Network with single ANCP+OMCI access control | ||||
o Unified video resource control | 5.2.2. All-ANCP ANX Control | |||
o NAS based provisioning of ANX | Figure 4 depicts the All-ANCP ANX control reference model. In this | |||
model, an ANCP session is enabled between a NAS and a connected OLT, | ||||
and another ANCP session is enabled between the OLT and a connected | ||||
ONT/ONU. ANCP enables communication of policies and events between | ||||
the OLT and the ANX. The OLT acts as a gateway to relay policies and | ||||
events between the NAS and ONT/ONU within the ANX in addition to | ||||
communicating policies and events between the OLT and ONT/ONU. It | ||||
should be noted that in this model, OMCI (not shown) is expected to | ||||
be simultaneously enabled between the ONT and OLT, supporting | ||||
existing OMCI capabilities and applications on the PON, independent | ||||
of ANCP or applications intended to be supported by ANCP. | ||||
o Access topology discovery | +----------------------+ | |||
| Access Node Complex | | ||||
| (ANX) | | ||||
+---------+ +---+ +-----+ |+---+ +-------+ | +---+ | ||||
| | +-|NAS|--|Eth |--||OLT|-<PON>-|ONU/ONT| |--|HGW| | ||||
NSP---+Regional | | +---+ |Agg | |+---+ +-------+ | +---+ | ||||
|Broadband| | +---+ +-----+ +----------------------+ | ||||
|Network |-+-|NAS| | | ||||
ASP---+ | | +---+ | | ||||
| | | +---+ | | ||||
+---------+ +-|NAS| | +-------+ +---+ | ||||
+---| +-<PON>-|ONU/ONT|--|HGW| | ||||
| +-------+ +---+ | ||||
............. | ||||
| +-------+ +---+ | ||||
+---|ONU/ONT|--|HGW| | ||||
+-------+ +---+ | ||||
o Remote connectivity check | ANCP ANCP | |||
+<----------------->+<----------->+ | ||||
5 Concept of Access Node Control Mechanism for PON based access | HGW: Home Gateway | |||
NAS: Network Access Server | ||||
PON: Passive Optical Network | ||||
OLT: Optical Line Terminal | ||||
ONT: Optical Network Terminal | ||||
ONU: Optical Network Unit | ||||
The high-level communication framework for an Access Node Control | Figure 4: All-ANCP ANX Reference Model | |||
Mechanism is shown in Figure 3. The Access Node Control Mechanism | ||||
defines a quasi real-time, general-purpose method for multiple | ||||
network scenarios with an extensible communication scheme, addressing | ||||
the different use cases that are described in the sections that | ||||
follow. The access node control mechanism is also extended to run | ||||
between OLT and ONT. The mechanism consists of control function, and | ||||
reporting and/or enforcement function. Controller function is used to | ||||
receive status information or admission requests from the reporting | ||||
function. It is also used to trigger a certain behavior in the | ||||
network element where the reporting and/or enforcement function | ||||
resides. | ||||
The reporting function is used to convey status information to the | 6. Concept of Access Node Control Mechanism for PON based access | |||
controller function that requires the information for executing local | ||||
functions. The enforcement function can be contacted by the | ||||
controller function to enforce a specific policy or trigger a local | ||||
action. The messages shown in Figure 3 show the conceptual message | ||||
flow. The actual use of these flows, and the times or frequencies | ||||
when these messages are generated depend on the actual use cases, | ||||
which are described in later sections. | ||||
+--------+ | The high-level communication framework for an Access Node Control | |||
| Policy | +----+ | Mechanism is shown in Figure 5 for the ALL-ANCP ANX control model. | |||
| Server | +--<PON>---|ONT |------- HGW | The Access Node Control Mechanism defines a quasi real-time, general- | |||
+--------+ + +----+ +---+ | purpose method for multiple network scenarios with an extensible | |||
| + +----------|ONT|------ HGW | communication scheme, addressing the different use cases that are | |||
| + | +---+ | described in the sections that follow. The access node control | |||
| +----------------|-------------+ | mechanism is also extended to run between OLT and ONT/ONU. The | |||
+----+ | +----+ | +-----+ | +---+ | mechanism consists of control function, and reporting and/or | |||
|NAS |---------------| | | | |-|------|HGW| | enforcement function. Controller function is used to receive status | |||
| |<------------->| | | | ONT | | +---+ | information or admission requests from the reporting function. It is | |||
+----+ ANCP | |OLT |------<PON>----| | | | also used to trigger a certain behavior in the network element where | |||
| | | | | | | +---+ | the reporting and/or enforcement function resides. | |||
| | | |<------------->| |-------- |HGW| | ||||
| | +----+ ANCP +-----+ | +---+ | ||||
| +-----------------------------+ | ||||
| | Access Node | | ||||
| Control Request | | | ||||
| ------------------>| Control Request | | ||||
| |-------------------->| | ||||
| | Control Response | | ||||
| Control Response |<------------------- | | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
| |Admission Request | | ||||
| Admission Request |<--------------------| | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
|Admission Response | | | ||||
|------------------->|Admission Response | | ||||
| |-------------------->| | ||||
|Information Report | | | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
Access Node Control Access Node Control | ||||
Mechanism Mechanism | ||||
<--------------------><--------------------> | ||||
PPP, DHCP, IP | The reporting function is used to convey status information to the | |||
<-----------------------------------------------------------> | controller function that requires the information for executing local | |||
functions. The enforcement function can be contacted by the | ||||
controller function to enforce a specific policy or trigger a local | ||||
action. The messages shown in Figure 5 show the conceptual message | ||||
flow. The actual use of these flows, and the times or frequencies | ||||
when these messages are generated depend on the actual use cases, | ||||
which are described in later sections. | ||||
Figure 3. Conceptual Message Flow for Access Node Control Mechanism | +--------+ | |||
| Policy | +----+ | ||||
| Server | +--<PON>---|ONT |------- HGW | ||||
+--------+ + +----+ +---+ | ||||
| + +----------|ONT|------ HGW | ||||
| + | +---+ | ||||
| +----------------|-------------+ | ||||
+----+ | +----+ | +-----+ | +---+ | ||||
|NAS |---------------| | | | |-|------|HGW| | ||||
| |<------------->| | | | ONU | | +---+ | ||||
+----+ ANCP | |OLT |------<PON>----| | | | ||||
| | | | | | | +---+ | ||||
| | | |<------------->| |-------- |HGW| | ||||
| | +----+ ANCP +-----+ | +---+ | ||||
| +-----------------------------+ | ||||
| | Access Node | | ||||
| Control Request | | | ||||
| ------------------>| Control Request | | ||||
| |-------------------->| | ||||
| | Control Response | | ||||
| Control Response |<------------------- | | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
| |Admission Request | | ||||
| Admission Request |<--------------------| | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
|Admission Response | | | ||||
|------------------->|Admission Response | | ||||
| |-------------------->| | ||||
|Information Report | | | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
Access Node Control Access Node Control | ||||
Mechanism Mechanism | ||||
<--------------------><--------------------> | ||||
6 Multicast | PPP, DHCP, IP | |||
<-----------------------------------------------------------> | ||||
With the rise of supporting IPTV services in a resource-efficient | Figure 5. Conceptual Message Flow for Access Node Control Mechanism | |||
way, multicast services are becoming increasingly important. | in all-ANCP ANX control model | |||
In order to gain bandwidth optimization with multicast, the | As discussed previously, in different PON deployment scenarios, ANCP | |||
replication of multicast content per access-loop needs to be | may be used in variant ways and may interwork with other protocols, | |||
distributed to the ANX. This can be done by ANX (OLT and ONT) | e.g. OMCI. In the ANCP+OMCI model described earlier, the NAS | |||
becoming multicast aware by implementing an IGMP snooping and/or | maintains ANCP adjacency with the OLT while the OLT controls the | |||
proxy function. The replication thus needs to be distributed between | ONT/ONU via OMCI. The messages shown in Figure 6 show the conceptual | |||
NAS, aggregation nodes, and ANX. In case of GPON, and in case of | message flow for this model. The actual use of these flows, and the | |||
BPON with Ethernet uplink, this is very viable. By introducing IGMP | times or frequencies when these messages are generated depend on the | |||
processing on the ANX and aggregation nodes, the multicast | actual use cases. | |||
replication process is now divided between the NAS, the aggregation | ||||
node(s) and ANX. This is in contrast to the ATM-based model, where | ||||
NAS is the single element responsible for all multicast control and | ||||
replication. In order to ensure backward compatibility with the ATM- | ||||
based model, the NAS, aggregation node and ANX need to behave as a | ||||
single logical device. This logical device must have exactly the same | ||||
functionality as the NAS in the ATM access/aggregation network. The | ||||
Access Node Control Mechanism can be used to make sure that this | ||||
logical/functional equivalence is achieved by exchanging the | ||||
necessary information between the ANX and the NAS. | ||||
An alternative to multicast awareness in the ANX is for the | +--------+ | |||
subscriber to communicate the IGMP "join/leave" messages with the | | Policy | | |||
NAS, while the ANX is being transparent to these messages. In this | | Server | | |||
scenario, the NAS can use ANCP to create replication state in the ANX | +--------+ +---+ +---+ | |||
for efficient multicast replication. The NAS sends a single copy of | | +---- |ONT|----------|HGW| | |||
the multicast stream towards the ANX. The NAS can perform network- | | | +---+ +---+ | |||
based conditional access and multicast admission control on multicast | | +--------------- |-------------+ | |||
joins, and create replication state in the ANX if the request is | +----+ | +----+ | +-----+ | +---+ | |||
admitted by the NAS. | |NAS |---------------| | | | |-|------|HGW| | |||
| |<------------->| | | | ONU | | +---+ | ||||
+----+ ANCP | |OLT |------<PON>----| | | | ||||
| | | | | | | +---+ | ||||
| | | |<------------->| |--------|HGW| | ||||
| | +----+ OMCI +-----+ | +---+ | ||||
| +-----------------------------+ | ||||
| | Access Node | | ||||
| Control Request | | | ||||
| ------------------>| Control Request | | ||||
| |-------------------->| | ||||
| | Control Response | | ||||
| Control Response |<------------------- | | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
| |Admission Request | | ||||
| Admission Request |<--------------------| | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
|Admission Response | | | ||||
|------------------->|Admission Response | | ||||
| |-------------------->| | ||||
|Information Report | | | ||||
|<-------------------| | | ||||
Access Node Control Operating Maintenance | ||||
Mechanism Control Interface (OMCI) | ||||
<--------------------><--------------------> | ||||
The following sections describe various use cases related to | PPP, DHCP, IP | |||
multicast. | <---------------------------------------------------------> | |||
6.1 Multicast Conditional Access | Figure 6: Conceptual Message Flow for ANCP+OMCI ANX control model | |||
In a Broadband FTTP access scenario, Service Providers may want to | 7. Multicast | |||
dynamically control, at the network level, access to some multicast | With the rise of supporting IPTV services in a resource-efficient | |||
flows on a per user basis. This may be used in order to | way, multicast services are becoming increasingly important. | |||
differentiate among multiple Service Offers or to realize/reinforce | ||||
conditional access based on customer subscription. Note that, in | ||||
some environments, application layer conditional access by means of | ||||
Digital Rights Management (DRM) for instance may provide sufficient | ||||
control, so that network-based Multicast conditional access may not | ||||
be needed. However, network level access control may add to the | ||||
service security by preventing the subscriber from receiving a non- | ||||
subscribed channel. In addition, it enhances network security by | ||||
preventing a multicast stream from being sent on a link or a PON | ||||
based on a non-subscriber request. | ||||
Where network-based channel conditional access is desired, there are | In order to gain bandwidth optimization with multicast, the | |||
two approaches. It can be done on the NAS along with bandwidth based | replication of multicast content per access-loop needs to be | |||
admission control. The NAS can control the replication state on the | distributed to the ANX. This can be done by ANX (OLT and ONT/ONU) | |||
ANX based on the outcome of access and bandwidth based admission | becoming multicast aware by implementing an IGMP snooping and/or | |||
control. This is covered later in section 3.4. The other approach is | proxy function. The replication thus needs to be distributed between | |||
to provision the necessary conditional access information on the ANX | NAS, aggregation nodes, and ANX. In case of GPON, and in case of BPON | |||
(ONT and/or OLT) so the ANX can perform the conditional access | with Ethernet uplink, this is very viable. By introducing IGMP | |||
decisions autonomously. For these cases, the NAS can use ANCP to | processing on the ANX and aggregation nodes, the multicast | |||
provision black and white lists as defined in [ANCP-FRAMEWORK], on | replication process is now divided between the NAS, the aggregation | |||
the ANX so that the ANX can decide locally to honor a join or not. | node(s) and ANX. This is in contrast to the ATM-based model, where | |||
It should be noted that in the PON case, the ANX is composed of the | NAS is the single element responsible for all multicast control and | |||
ONT and OLT. Thus, this information can be programmed on the ONT | replication. In order to ensure backward compatibility with the ATM- | |||
and/or OLT. Programming this information on the ONT prevents | based model, the NAS, aggregation node and ANX need to behave as a | |||
illegitimate joins from propagating further into the network. A | single logical device. This logical device must have exactly the same | |||
third approach, outside of the scope, may be to program the HGW with | functionality as the NAS in the ATM access/aggregation network. The | |||
the access list. | Access Node Control Mechanism can be used to make sure that this | |||
logical/functional equivalence is achieved by exchanging the | ||||
necessary information between the ANX and the NAS. | ||||
A White list associated with an Access Port identifies the multicast | An alternative to multicast awareness in the ANX is for the | |||
channels that are allowed to be replicated to that port. A Black | subscriber to communicate the IGMP "join/leave" messages with the | |||
list | NAS, while the ANX is being transparent to these messages. In this | |||
associated with an Access Port identifies the multicast channels | scenario, the NAS can use ANCP to create replication state in the ANX | |||
that | for efficient multicast replication. The NAS sends a single copy of | |||
are not allowed to be replicated to that port. It should be noted | the multicast stream towards the ANX. The NAS can perform network- | |||
that the black list if not explicitly programmed is the complement | based conditional access and multicast admission control on multicast | |||
of the white list and vice versa. | joins, and create replication state in the ANX if the request is | |||
admitted by the NAS. | ||||
If the ONT performs IGMP snooping and it is programmed with a | The following sections describe various use cases related to | |||
channel access list, the ONT will first check if the requested | multicast. | |||
multicast channel is part of a White list or a Black list associated | ||||
with the access port on which the IGMP join is received. If the | ||||
channel is part of a White list, the ONT will pass the join request | ||||
upstream towards the NAS. The ONT must not start replicating the | ||||
associated multicast stream to the access port if such a stream is | ||||
received until it gets confirmation that it can do so from the | ||||
upstream node (NAS or OLT). Passing the channel access list is one | ||||
of the admission control criteria whereas bandwidth-based admission | ||||
control is another. If the channel is part of a Black list, the ONT | ||||
can autonomously discard the message because the channel is not | ||||
authorized for that subscriber. | ||||
The ONT, in addition to forwarding the IGMP join, sends an ANCP | 7.1. Multicast Conditional Access | |||
admission request to the OLT identifying the channel to be joined | ||||
and the premise. Premise identification to the OLT can be based on a | ||||
Customer-Port-ID that maps to the access port on the ONT and known | ||||
at the ONT and OLT. If the ONT has a white list and/or a black list | ||||
per premise, the OLT need not have such a list. If the ONT does not | ||||
have such a list, the OLT may be programmed with such a list for | ||||
each premise. In this latter case, the OLT would perform the actions | ||||
described earlier on the ONT. Once the outcome of admission control | ||||
(conditional access and bandwidth based admission control) is | ||||
determined by the OLT (either by interacting with the NAS or | ||||
locally), it is informed to the ONT. OLT Bandwidth based admission | ||||
control scenarios are defined in section 3.4. | ||||
The White List and Black List can contain entries allowing: | In a Broadband FTTP/B/C access scenario, Service Providers may want | |||
to dynamically control, at the network level, access to some | ||||
multicast flows on a per user basis. This may be used in order to | ||||
differentiate among multiple Service Offers or to realize/reinforce | ||||
conditional access based on customer subscription. Note that, in some | ||||
environments, application layer conditional access by means of | ||||
Digital Rights Management (DRM) for instance may provide sufficient | ||||
control, so that network-based Multicast conditional access may not | ||||
be needed. However, network level access control may add to the | ||||
service security by preventing the subscriber from receiving a non- | ||||
subscribed channel. In addition, it enhances network security by | ||||
preventing a multicast stream from being sent on a link or a PON | ||||
based on a non-subscriber request. | ||||
o An exact match for a (*,G) ASM group (e.g. <G=g.h.i.l>); | Where network-based channel conditional access is desired, there are | |||
two approaches. It can be done on the NAS along with bandwidth based | ||||
admission control. The NAS can control the replication state on the | ||||
ANX based on the outcome of access and bandwidth based admission | ||||
control. This is covered a later section. The other approach is to | ||||
provision the necessary conditional access information on the ANX | ||||
(ONT/ONU and/or OLT) so the ANX can perform the conditional access | ||||
decisions autonomously. For these cases, the NAS can use ANCP to | ||||
provision black and white lists as defined in [ANCP-FRAMEWORK], on | ||||
the ANX so that the ANX can decide locally to honor a join or not. It | ||||
should be noted that in the PON case, the ANX is composed of the | ||||
ONT/ONU and OLT. Thus, this information can be programmed on the | ||||
ONT/ONU and/or OLT. Programming this information on the ONT/ONU | ||||
prevents illegitimate joins from propagating further into the | ||||
network. A third approach, outside of the scope, may be to program | ||||
the HGW with the access list. | ||||
A White list associated with an Access Port identifies the multicast | ||||
channels that are allowed to be replicated to that port. A Black | ||||
list associated with an Access Port identifies the multicast channels | ||||
that are not allowed to be replicated to that port. It should be | ||||
noted that the black list if not explicitly programmed is the | ||||
complement of the white list and vice versa. | ||||
o An exact match for a (S,G) SSM channel (e.g. | If the ONT/ONU performs IGMP snooping and it is programmed with a | |||
<S=s.t.u.v,G=g.h.i.l>); | channel access list, the ONT/ONU will first check if the requested | |||
multicast channel is part of a White list or a Black list associated | ||||
with the access port on which the IGMP join is received. If the | ||||
channel is part of a White list, the ONT/ONU will pass the join | ||||
request upstream towards the NAS. The ONT/ONU must not start | ||||
replicating the associated multicast stream to the access port if | ||||
such a stream is received until it gets confirmation that it can do | ||||
so from the upstream node (NAS or OLT). Passing the channel access | ||||
list is one of the admission control criteria whereas bandwidth-based | ||||
admission control is another. If the channel is part of a Black list, | ||||
the ONT/ONU can autonomously discard the message because the channel | ||||
is not authorized for that subscriber. | ||||
o A mask-based range match for a (*,G) ASM group (e.g. <G=g.h.i.l/ | The ONT/ONU, in addition to forwarding the IGMP join, sends an ANCP | |||
Mask>); | admission request to the OLT identifying the channel to be joined and | |||
the premises. Premises identification to the OLT can be based on a | ||||
Customer-Port-ID that maps to the access port on the ONT/ONU and | ||||
known at the ONT/ONU and OLT. If the ONT/ONU has a white list and/or | ||||
a black list per premises, the OLT need not have such a list. If the | ||||
ONT/ONU does not have such a list, the OLT may be programmed with | ||||
such a list for each premises. In this latter case, the OLT would | ||||
perform the actions described earlier on the ONT/ONU. Once the | ||||
outcome of admission control(conditional access and bandwidth based | ||||
admission control) is determined by the OLT (either by interacting | ||||
with the NAS or locally), it is informed to the ONT/ONU. OLT | ||||
Bandwidth based admission control scenarios are defined in a later | ||||
section. | ||||
o A mask-based range match for a (S,G) SSM channel (e.g. | The White List and Black List can contain entries allowing: | |||
<S=s.t.u.v,G=g.h.i.l/Mask>); | ||||
The use of a White list and Black list may be applicable, for | - An exact match for a (*,G) (Any Source Multicast (ASM) group | |||
instance, to regular IPTV services (i.e. Broadcast TV) offered by an | (e.g. <G=g.h.i.l>); | |||
Access Provider to broadband (e.g., FTTP) subscribers. For this | ||||
application, the IPTV subscription is typically bound to a specific | ||||
FTTP home, and the multicast channels that are part of the | ||||
subscription are well-known beforehand. Furthermore, changes to the | ||||
conditional access information are infrequent, since they are bound | ||||
to the subscription. Hence the ANX can be provisioned with the | ||||
conditional access information related to the IPTV service. | ||||
Instead of including the channel list(s) at the ONT, the OLT or NAS | - An exact match for a (S,G) Source Specific Multicast (SSM) | |||
can be programmed with these access lists. Having these access lists | channel (e.g. | |||
on the ONT prevents forwarding of unauthorized joins to the OLT or | <S=s.t.u.v,G=g.h.i.l>); | |||
NAS, reducing unnecessary control load on these network elements. | ||||
Similarly, performing the access control at the OLT instead of the | ||||
NAS, if not performed on the ONT, will reduce unnecessary control | ||||
load on the NAS. | ||||
6.2 Multicast Admission Control | - A mask-based range match for a (*,G) ASM group (e.g. | |||
<G=g.h.i.l/ | ||||
Mask>); | ||||
The successful delivery of Triple Play Broadband services is quickly | - A mask-based range match for a (S,G) SSM channel (e.g. | |||
becoming a big capacity planning challenge for most of the Service | <S=s.t.u.v,G=g.h.i.l/Mask>); | |||
Providers nowadays. Solely increasing available bandwidth is not | ||||
always practical, cost-economical and/or sufficient to satisfy end- | ||||
user experience given not only the strict QoS requirements of unicast | ||||
applications like VoIP and Video on Demand, but also the fast growth | ||||
of multicast interactive applications such as "video conferencing", | ||||
digital TV, and digital audio. These applications typically require | ||||
low delay, low jitter, low packet loss and high bandwidth. These | ||||
applications are also typically "non-elastic", which means that they | ||||
operate at a fixed bandwidth, which cannot be dynamically adjusted to | ||||
the currently available bandwidth. | ||||
An Admission Control (AC) mechanism covering admission of multicast | The use of a White list and Black list may be applicable, for | |||
traffic for the FTTP access is required, in order to avoid over- | instance, to regular IPTV services (i.e. Broadcast TV) offered by an | |||
subscribing the available bandwidth and negatively impacting the end- | Access Provider to broadband (e.g., FTTP) subscribers. For this | |||
user experience. Before honoring a user request to join a new | application, the IPTV subscription is typically bound to a specific | |||
multicast flow, the combination of ANX and NAS MUST ensure admission | FTTP home, and the multicast channels that are part of the | |||
control is performed to validate that there is enough video bandwidth | subscription are well-known beforehand. Furthermore, changes to the | |||
remaining on the PON, and on the uplink between the OLT and NAS to | conditional access information are infrequent, since they are bound | |||
carry the new flow (in addition to all other existing multicast and | to the subscription. Hence the ANX can be provisioned with the | |||
unicast video traffic) and that there is enough video bandwidth for | conditional access information related to the IPTV service. | |||
the subscriber to carry that flow. The solution needs to cope with | ||||
multiple flows per premise and needs to allow bandwidth to be | ||||
dynamically shared across multicast and unicast video traffic per | ||||
subscriber, PON, and uplink (irrespective of whether unicast AC is | ||||
performed by the NAS, or by some off-path Policy Server). It should | ||||
be noted that the shared bandwidth between multicast and unicast | ||||
video is under operator control. That is, in addition to the shared | ||||
bandwidth, some video bandwidth could be dedicated to Video on | ||||
Demand, while other video bandwidth could be dedicated for multicast. | ||||
The focus in this document will be on multicast-allocated bandwidth | ||||
including the shared unicast and multicast bandwidth. Thus, | ||||
supporting admission control requires some form of synchronization | ||||
between the entities performing multicast AC (e.g. the ANX and/or | ||||
NAS), the entity performing unicast AC (e.g. the NAS or a Policy | ||||
Server), and the entity actually enforcing the multicast replication | ||||
(i.e., the NAS and the ANX). This synchronization can be achieved in | ||||
a number of ways: | ||||
. - One approach is for the NAS to perform bandwidth based | Instead of including the channel list(s) at the ONT/ONU, the OLT or | |||
admission control on all multicast video traffic and unicast video | NAS can be programmed with these access lists. Having these access | |||
traffic that requires using the shared bandwidth with multicast | lists on the ONT/ONU prevents forwarding of unauthorized joins to the | |||
shr. Based on the outcome of admission control, NAS then controls | OLT or NAS, reducing unnecessary control load on these network | |||
the replication state on the ANX. | elements. Similarly, performing the access control at the OLT instead | |||
of the NAS, if not performed on the ONT/ONU, will reduce unnecessary | ||||
control load on the NAS. | ||||
The subscriber generates an IGMP join for the desired stream on its | 7.2. Multicast Admission Control | |||
logical connection to the NAS. The NAS terminates the IGMP message, | ||||
performs conditional access, and bandwidth based admission control | ||||
on the IGMP request. The bandwidth admission control is performed | ||||
against the following: | ||||
1. Available video bandwidth on the link to OLT | The successful delivery of Triple Play Broadband services is quickly | |||
becoming a big capacity planning challenge for most of the Service | ||||
Providers nowadays. Solely increasing available bandwidth is not | ||||
always practical, cost-economical and/or sufficient to satisfy end- | ||||
user experience given not only the strict QoS requirements of unicast | ||||
applications like VoIP and Video on Demand, but also the fast growth | ||||
of multicast interactive applications such as "video conferencing", | ||||
digital TV, and digital audio. These applications typically require | ||||
low delay, low jitter, low packet loss and high bandwidth. These | ||||
applications are also typically "non-elastic", which means that they | ||||
operate at a fixed bandwidth, which cannot be dynamically adjusted to | ||||
the currently available bandwidth. | ||||
2. Available video bandwidth on the PON interface | An Admission Control (AC) mechanism covering admission of multicast | |||
traffic for the FTTP/B/C access is required, in order to avoid over- | ||||
subscribing the available bandwidth and negatively impacting the end- | ||||
user experience. Before honoring a user request to join a new | ||||
multicast flow, the combination of ANX and NAS MUST ensure admission | ||||
control is performed to validate that there is enough video bandwidth | ||||
remaining on the PON, and on the uplink between the OLT and NAS to | ||||
carry the new flow (in addition to all other existing multicast and | ||||
unicast video traffic) and that there is enough video bandwidth for | ||||
the subscriber to carry that flow. The solution needs to cope with | ||||
multiple flows per premises and needs to allow bandwidth to be | ||||
dynamically shared across multicast and unicast video traffic per | ||||
subscriber, PON, and uplink (irrespective of whether unicast AC is | ||||
performed by the NAS, or by some off-path Policy Server). It should | ||||
be noted that the shared bandwidth between multicast and unicast | ||||
video is under operator control. That is, in addition to the shared | ||||
bandwidth, some video bandwidth could be dedicated to Video on | ||||
Demand, while other video bandwidth could be dedicated for multicast. | ||||
The focus in this document will be on multicast-allocated bandwidth | ||||
including the shared unicast and multicast bandwidth. Thus, | ||||
supporting admission control requires some form of synchronization | ||||
between the entities performing multicast AC (e.g., the ANX and/or | ||||
NAS), the entity performing unicast AC (e.g. the NAS or a Policy | ||||
Server), and the entity actually enforcing the multicast replication | ||||
(i.e., the NAS and the ANX). This synchronization can be achieved in | ||||
a number of ways: | ||||
3. Available video bandwidth on the last mile (access-port on the | - One approach is for the NAS to perform bandwidth based | |||
ONT/ONU). | admission control | |||
on all multicast video traffic and unicast video traffic that | ||||
requires using the shared bandwidth with multicast. Based on the | ||||
outcome of admission control, NAS then controls the replication | ||||
state on the ANX. The subscriber generates an IGMP join for the | ||||
desired stream on its logical connection to the NAS. The NAS | ||||
terminates the IGMP message, performs conditional access, and | ||||
bandwidth based admission control on the IGMP request. The | ||||
bandwidth admission control is performed against the following: | ||||
1. Available video bandwidth on the link to OLT | ||||
2. Available video bandwidth on the PON interface | ||||
3. Available video bandwidth on the last mile (access-port on | ||||
the | ||||
ONT/ONU). | ||||
The NAS can locally maintain and track video bandwidth it manages | The NAS can locally maintain and track video bandwidth it manages | |||
for all the three levels mentioned above. The NAS can maintain | for all the three levels mentioned above. The NAS can maintain | |||
identifiers corresponding to the PON interface and the last mile | identifiers corresponding to the PON interface and the last mile | |||
(customer interface). It also maintains a channel map, associating | (customer interface). It also maintains a channel map, associating | |||
every channel (or a group of channels sharing the same bandwidth | every channel (or a group of channels sharing the same bandwidth | |||
requirement) with a data rate. For instance, in case of 1:1 VLAN | requirement) with a data rate. For instance, in case of 1:1 VLAN | |||
representation of the premise, the outer tag (S-VLAN) could be | representation of the premises, the outer tag (S-VLAN) could be | |||
inserted by the ANX to correspond to the PON interface on the OLT, | inserted by the ANX to correspond to the PON interface on the OLT, | |||
and the inner-tag could be inserted by the ANX to correspond to the | and the inner-tag could be inserted by the ANX to correspond to the | |||
access-line towards the customer. Bandwidth tracking and | access-line towards the customer. Bandwidth tracking and maintenance | |||
maintenance for the PON interface and the last-mile could be done | for the PON interface and the last-mile could be done on these VLAN | |||
on these VLAN identifiers. In case if N:1 representation, the | identifiers. In case of N:1 representation, the single VLAN inserted | |||
single VLAN inserted by ANX could correspond to the PON interface | by ANX could correspond to the PON interface on the OLT. The access | |||
on the OLT. The access loop is represented via Customer-Port-ID | loop is represented via Customer-Port-ID received in "Agent Circuit | |||
received in "Agent Circuit Identifier" sub-option in DHCP messages. | Identifier" sub-option in DHCP messages. | |||
The NAS can perform bandwidth accounting on received IGMP messages. | The NAS can perform bandwidth accounting on received IGMP | |||
The video bandwidth is also consumed by any unicast video being | messages. The video bandwidth is also consumed by any unicast video | |||
delivered to the CPE. NAS can perform video bandwidth accounting | being delivered to the CPE. NAS can perform video bandwidth | |||
and control on both IGMP messages and on requests for unicast video | accounting and control on both IGMP messages and on requests for | |||
streams when either all unicast admission control is done by the | unicast video streams when either all unicast admission control is | |||
NAS or an external policy server makes a request to the NAS for | done by the NAS or an external policy server makes a request to the | |||
using shared bandwidth with multicast as described later in the | NAS for using shared bandwidth with multicast as described later in | |||
document. | the document. | |||
This particular scenario assumes the NAS is aware of the bandwidth | This particular scenario assumes the NAS is aware of the bandwidth | |||
on the PON, and under all conditions can track the changes in | on the PON, and under all conditions can track the changes in | |||
available bandwidth on the PON. On receiving an IGMP Join message, | available bandwidth on the PON. On receiving an IGMP Join message, | |||
NAS will perform bandwidth check on the subscriber bandwidth. If | NAS will perform bandwidth check on the subscriber bandwidth. If this | |||
this passes, and the stream is already being forwarded on the PON | passes, and the stream is already being forwarded on the PON by the | |||
by the OLT (which also means that it is already forwarded by the | OLT (which also means that it is already forwarded by the NAS to the | |||
NAS to the OLT), NAS will admit the JOIN, update the available | OLT), NAS will admit the JOIN, update the available subscriber | |||
subscriber bandwidth, and transmit an ANCP message to the OLT and | bandwidth, and transmit an ANCP message to the OLT and in turn to the | |||
in turn to the ONT to start replication on the customer port. If | ONT/ONU to start replication on the customer port. If the stream is | |||
the stream is not already being replicated to the PON by the OLT, | not already being replicated to the PON by the OLT, the NAS will also | |||
the NAS will also check the available bandwidth on the PON, and if | check the available bandwidth on the PON, and if it is not already | |||
it is not already being replicated to the OLT it will check the | being replicated to the OLT it will check the bandwidth on the link | |||
bandwidth on the link towards the OLT. If this passes, the | towards the OLT. If this passes, the available PON bandwidth and the | |||
available PON bandwidth and the bandwidth on the link towards the | bandwidth on the link towards the OLT is updated. The NAS adds the | |||
OLT is updated. The NAS adds the OLT as a leaf to the multicast | OLT as a leaf to the multicast tree for that stream. | |||
tree for that stream. | ||||
On receiving the message to start replication, the OLT will add the | On receiving the message to start replication, the OLT will add | |||
PON interface to its replication state if the stream is not already | the PON interface to its replication state if the stream is not | |||
being forwarded on that PON. Also, the OLT will send an ANCP | already being forwarded on that PON. Also, the OLT will send an ANCP | |||
message to direct the ONT to add or update its replication state | message to direct the ONT/ONU to add or update its replication state | |||
with the customer port for that channel. The interaction between | with the customer port for that channel. The interaction between ANX | |||
ANX and NAS is shown in Figures 4 and 5. | and NAS is shown in Figures 7 and 8. For unicast video streams, | |||
For unicast video streams, application level signaling from the CPE | application level signaling from the CPE typically triggers an | |||
typically triggers an application server to request bandwidth based | application server to request bandwidth based admission control from | |||
admission control from a policy server. The policy server can in | a policy server. The policy server can in turn interact with the NAS | |||
turn interact with the NAS to request the bandwidth for the unicast | to request the bandwidth for the unicast video flow if it needs to | |||
video flow if it needs to use shared bandwidth with multicast. If | use shared bandwidth with multicast. If the bandwidth is available, | |||
the bandwidth is available, NAS will reserve the bandwidth, update | NAS will reserve the bandwidth, update the bandwidth pools for | |||
the bandwidth pools for subscriber bandwidth, the PON bandwidth, | subscriber bandwidth, the PON bandwidth, and the bandwidth on the | |||
and the bandwidth on the link towards the OLT, and send a response | link towards the OLT, and send a response to the policy server, which | |||
to the policy server, which is propagated back to the application | is propagated back to the application server to start streaming. | |||
server to start streaming. Otherwise, the request is rejected. | Otherwise, the request is rejected. | |||
+----+ | +----+ | |||
+---<PON>-----------|ONT |-------- HGW | +---<PON>---------- |ONT |-------- HGW | |||
+ +----+ | + +----+ | |||
+ +----+ | + +----+ | |||
+ +--------- |ONT |-------- HGW | + +--------- |ONT |-------- HGW | |||
+----+ +----+ + +----+ | +----+ +----+ + +----+ | |||
|NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | |NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | |||
| |<------------->| | + +-----+ | | |<------------->| | + +-----+ | |||
+----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |------- HGW | +----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |------- HGW | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | |<------------------>| ONU |--------HGW | | | |<------------------>| ONU |--------HGW | |||
| +----+ ANCP | | +---+ | | +----+ ANCP | | +---+ | |||
| | | |-------|HGW| | | | | |-------|HGW| | |||
| | +-----+ +---+ | | | +-----+ +---+ | |||
| 1.IGMP JOIN(S/*,G) | | | | 1.IGMP JOIN(S/*,G) | | | |||
|<-------------------------------------------------------------| | |<------------------------------------------------------------ | | |||
2.| | | | | 2.| | | | | |||
+=======================+ | | | +=======================+ | | | |||
[Access Control & ] | | | [Access Control & ] | | | |||
[Subscriber B/W ] | | | [Subscriber B/W ] | | | |||
[PON B/W & OLT link B/W ] | | | [PON B/W & OLT link B/W ] | | | |||
[based Admission Control] | | | [based Admission Control] | | | |||
+=======================+ | | | +=======================+ | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | |-------------------> | | | | |||
|-------------------->| | | | 3.ANCP Replication-Start| | | | |||
3.ANCP Replication-Start| | | | (<S/*,G> or Multicast | | | | |||
(<S/*,G> or Multicast MAC,Customer-Port-ID> | | |MAC,Customer-Port-ID>| --------------------> | | | |||
| | | | | | |4.ANCP Replication-Start | | |||
| | --------------------->| | | | |(<S/*,G> or Multicast MAC,Customer-Port-ID) | |||
| |4.ANCP Replication-Start | | |-------------------> | | | | |||
| |(<S/*,G> or Multicast MAC,Customer-Port-ID) | |5.Multicast Flow(S,G)| | | | |||
|-------------------->| | | | |On Multicast VLAN |---------------------> | | | |||
|5.Multicast Flow(S,G)| | | | | |6.Multicast Flow (S,G) | | | |||
|On Multicast VLAN |---------------------->| | | | |forwarded on | | | |||
| |6.Multicast Flow (S,G) | | | | |Unidirectional | | | |||
| |forwarded on | | | | |<Multicast GEM-PORT> | | | |||
| |Unidirectional | | | | |on the PON by OLT |--------------> | | |||
| |<Multicast GEM-PORT> | | | |7. Multicast Flow | |||
| |on the PON by OLT |--------------->| | |forwarded on | | |||
|7. Multicast Flow | |Customer-Port by| | |||
|forwarded on | | |ONT/OLT. | | |||
|Customer-Port by| | | | | |||
|ONT/OLT. | | Figure 7. Interactions for NAS based Multicast Admission Control (no | |||
| | | IGMP processing on ANX, and NAS maintains available video bandwidth | |||
Figure 4. Interactions for NAS based Multicast Admission Control (no | for PON). | |||
IGMP processing on ANX, and NAS maintains available video bandwidth for | ||||
PON). | ||||
+----+ | +----+ | |||
+---<PON>-----------|ONT |-------- HGW | +---<PON>---------- |ONT |-------- HGW | |||
+ +----+ | + +----+ | |||
+ +----+ | + +----+ | |||
+ +--------- |ONT |-------- HGW | + +--------- |ONT |-------- HGW | |||
+----+ +----+ + +----+ | +----+ +----+ + +----+ | |||
|NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | |NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | |||
| |<------------->| | + +-----+ | | |<------------->| | + +-----+ | |||
+----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |------- HGW | +----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |------- HGW | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | |<------------------>| ONU |--------HGW | | | |<------------------>| ONU |--------HGW | |||
| +----+ ANCP | | +---+ | | +----+ ANCP | | +---+ | |||
| | | |--------|HGW| | | | | |--------|HGW| | |||
| | +-----+ +---+ | | | +-----+ +---+ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
| IGMP LEAVE(S/*,G) | | | | IGMP LEAVE(S/*,G) | | | |||
|<-------------------------------------------------------------| | |<------------------------------------------------------------ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
+====================+ | | | | +====================+ | | | | |||
[Admission Control ] | | | | [Admission Control ] | | | | |||
[<Resource Released> ] | | | | [<Resource Released> ] | | | | |||
+====================+ | | | | +====================+ | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
|-------------------->| | | | |-------------------> | | | | |||
ANCP Replication-Stop | | | | ANCP Replication-Stop | | | | |||
(<S/*,G> or Multicast MAC,Customer-Port-ID) | | | (<S/*,G> or Multicast MAC,Customer-Port-ID) | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
| |---------------------->| | | | |---------------------> | | | |||
| | ANCP Replication-Stop | | | | | ANCP Replication-Stop | | | |||
(<S/*,G> or Multicast MAC,Customer-Port-ID) | (<S/*,G> or Multicast MAC,Customer-Port-ID) | |||
Figure 5. Interactions for NAS based Multicast Admission Control (no | Figure 8. Interactions for NAS based Multicast Admission Control (no | |||
IGMP processing on ANX, and NAS maintains available video bandwidth for | IGMP processing on ANX, and NAS maintains available video bandwidth | |||
PON). | for PON). | |||
. An alternate approach is required if the NAS is not aware of the | - An alternate approach is required if the NAS is not aware of the | |||
bandwidth on the PON. In this case the OLT does the PON bandwidth | bandwidth on the PON. In this case the OLT does the PON bandwidth | |||
management, and requests NAS to perform bandwidth admission | management, and requests NAS to perform bandwidth admission control | |||
control on subscriber bandwidth and the bandwidth on the link to | on subscriber bandwidth and the bandwidth on the link to the OLT. | |||
the OLT. | ||||
ANX operation: | ANX operation: | |||
o ONT can snoop IGMP messages. If conditional access is configured | - ONT/ONU can snoop IGMP messages. If conditional access is | |||
and the channel is in the Black list (or it is not on the White | configured and the channel is in the Black list (or it is not on the | |||
list), ONT will drop the IGMP Join. If the channel passes the | White list), ONT will drop the IGMP Join. If the channel passes the | |||
conditional access check, the ONT will forward the IGMP Join, | conditional access check, the ONT will forward the IGMP Join,and will | |||
and will send a bandwidth admission control request to the OLT. | send a bandwidth admission control request to the OLT. In case the | |||
In case the multicast stream is already being received on the | multicast stream is already being received on the PON, the ONT/ONU | |||
PON, the ONT does not forward the stream to the access port | does not forward the stream to the access port where IGMP is received | |||
where IGMP is received, till it has received a positive | till it has received a positive admission control response from the | |||
admission control response from the OLT. | OLT. | |||
o OLT can snoop IGMP messages. It also receives a bandwidth | - OLT can snoop IGMP messages. It also receives a bandwidth | |||
admission control request from the ONT for the requested | admission control request from the ONT/ONU for the requested | |||
channel. It can be programmed with a channel bandwidth map. If | channel. It can be programmed with a channel bandwidth map. If | |||
the multicast channel is already being streamed on the PON, or | the multicast channel is already being streamed on the PON, or | |||
the channel bandwidth is less than the multicast available | the channel bandwidth is less than the multicast available | |||
bandwidth on the PON, the OLT forwards the IGMP request to the | bandwidth on the PON, the OLT forwards the IGMP request to the | |||
NAS and keeps track of the subscriber (identified by customer- | NAS and keeps track of the subscriber (identified by customer- | |||
Port-ID) as a receiver. If the channel is not already being | Port-ID) as a receiver. If the channel is not already being | |||
streamed on the PON, but the PON has sufficient bandwidth for | streamed on the PON, but the PON has sufficient bandwidth for | |||
that channel, the OLT reduces the PON multicast video bandwidth | that channel, the OLT reduces the PON multicast video bandwidth | |||
by the channel bandwidth and may optionally add the PON to the | by the channel bandwidth and may optionally add the PON to the | |||
multicast tree without activation for that channel. This is | multicast tree without activation for that channel. This is | |||
biased towards a forward expectation that the request will be | biased towards a forward expectation that the request will be | |||
accepted at the NAS. The OLT forwards the IGMP join to the NAS. | accepted at the NAS. The OLT forwards the IGMP join to the NAS. | |||
It also sends a bandwidth admission request to the NAS | It also sends a bandwidth admission request to the NAS | |||
identifying the channel, and the premise for which the request | identifying the channel, and the premises for which the request | |||
is made. It sets a timer for the subscriber multicast entry | is made. It sets a timer for the subscriber multicast entry | |||
within which it expects to receive a request from the NAS that | within which it expects to receive a request from the NAS that | |||
relates to this request. If the PON available bandwidth is | relates to this request. If the PON available bandwidth is | |||
less than the bandwidth of the requested channel, the OLT sends | less than the bandwidth of the requested channel, the OLT sends | |||
an admission response (with a reject) to the ONT, and does not | an admission response (with a reject) to the ONT/ONU, and does not | |||
forward the IGMP join to the NAS. | forward the IGMP join to the NAS. | |||
NAS operation: | NAS operation: | |||
The NAS receives the IGMP join from the subscriber on the | The NAS receives the IGMP join from the subscriber on the | |||
subscriber connection. When NAS receives the admission control | subscriber connection. When NAS receives the admission control | |||
request from ANX (also signifying the bandwidth on the PON is | request from ANX (also signifying the bandwidth on the PON is | |||
available), it performs admission control against the subscriber | available), it performs admission control against the subscriber | |||
available multicast bandwidth. If this check passes, and the NAS is | available multicast bandwidth. If this check passes, and the NAS is | |||
already transmitting that channel to the OLT, the request is | already transmitting that channel to the OLT, the request is | |||
accepted. If the check passes and the NAS is not transmitting the | accepted. If the check passes and the NAS is not transmitting the | |||
channel to the OLT yet, it performs admission control against the | channel to the OLT yet, it performs admission control against the | |||
multicast video available bandwidth (this includes the dedicated | multicast video available bandwidth (this includes the dedicated | |||
multicast bandwidth and the shared bandwidth between multicast and | multicast bandwidth and the shared bandwidth between multicast and | |||
video on demand) on the link(s) to the OLT. If the check passes, | video on demand) on the link(s) to the OLT. If the check passes, | |||
the request is accepted, the available video bandwidth for the | the request is accepted, the available video bandwidth for the | |||
subscriber and downlink to the OLT are reduced by the channel | subscriber and downlink to the OLT are reduced by the channel | |||
bandwidth, and the NAS sends an ANCP admission control response | bandwidth, and the NAS sends an ANCP admission control response | |||
(indicating accept) to the OLT, requesting the addition of the | (indicating accept) to the OLT, requesting the addition of the | |||
subscriber to the multicast tree for that channel. The OLT | subscriber to the multicast tree for that channel. The OLT | |||
activates the corresponding multicast entry if not active and | activates the corresponding multicast entry if not active and | |||
maintains state of the subscriber in the list of receivers for that | maintains state of the subscriber in the list of receivers for that | |||
channel. The OLT also sends an ANCP request to the ONT to enable | channel. The OLT also sends an ANCP request to the ONT/ONU to enable | |||
reception of the multicast channel and forwarding to the subscriber | reception of the multicast channel and forwarding to the subscriber | |||
access port. Otherwise, if the request is rejected, the NAS will | access port. Otherwise, if the request is rejected, the NAS will | |||
send an admission reject to the OLT, which in turns removes the | send an admission reject to the OLT, which in turns removes the | |||
subscriber as a receiver for that channel (it it were added), and | subscriber as a receiver for that channel (if it were added), and | |||
credits back the channel bandwidth to the PON video bandwidth if | credits back the channel bandwidth to the PON video bandwidth if | |||
there is no other receiver on the PON for that channel. The | there is no other receiver on the PON for that channel. The | |||
interactions between ANX and NAS are show in Figures 6 and 7. | interactions between ANX and NAS are shown in Figures 9 and 10. | |||
If the OLT does not receive a response from the NAS within a set | If the OLT does not receive a response from the NAS within a set | |||
timer, the OLT removes the subscriber from the potential list of | timer, the OLT removes the subscriber from the potential list of | |||
receivers for the indicated channel. It also returns the allocated | receivers for the indicated channel. It also returns the allocated | |||
bandwidth to the PON available bandwidth if there are no other | bandwidth to the PON available bandwidth if there are no other | |||
receivers. In this case, the NAS may send a response to the OLT | receivers. In this case, the NAS may send a response to the OLT | |||
with no matching entry as the entry has been deleted. The OLT must | with no matching entry as the entry has been deleted. The OLT must | |||
perform admission control against the PON available bandwidth and | perform admission control against the PON available bandwidth and | |||
may accept the request and send an ANCP request to the ONT to | may accept the request and send an ANCP request to the ONT/ONU to | |||
activate the corresponding multicast entry as described earlier. If | activate the corresponding multicast entry as described earlier. If | |||
it does not accept the request, it will respond back to the NAS | it does not accept the request, it will respond back to the NAS | |||
with a reject. The NAS shall credit back the channel bandwidth to | with a reject. The NAS shall credit back the channel bandwidth to | |||
the subscriber. It shall also stop sending the channel to the OLT | the subscriber. It shall also stop sending the channel to the OLT | |||
if that subscriber was the last leaf on the multicast tree towards | if that subscriber was the last leaf on the multicast tree towards | |||
the OLT. | the OLT. | |||
On processing an IGMP leave, the OLT will send an ANCP request to | On processing an IGMP leave, the OLT will send an ANCP request to | |||
NAS to release resources. NAS will release the subscriber | NAS to release resources. NAS will release the subscriber | |||
bandwidth. If this leave causes the stream to be no longer required | bandwidth. If this leave causes the stream to be no longer required | |||
by the OLT, the NAS will update its replication state and release | by the OLT, the NAS will update its replication state and release | |||
the bandwidth on the NAS to OLT link. | the bandwidth on the NAS to OLT link. | |||
If the subscriber makes a request for a unicast video stream (i.e., | If the subscriber makes a request for a unicast video stream (i.e., | |||
Video on Demand), it results in appropriate application level | Video on Demand), the request results in appropriate application | |||
signaling, which typically results in an application server | level signaling, which typically results in an application server | |||
requesting a policy server for bandwidth-based admission control | requesting a policy server for bandwidth-based admission control | |||
for the VoD stream. The policy server after authorizing the | for the VoD stream. The policy server after authorizing the | |||
request, can send a request to the NAS for the required bandwidth | request, can send a request to the NAS for the required bandwidth | |||
if it needs to use bandwidth that is shared with multicast. This | if it needs to use bandwidth that is shared with multicast. This | |||
request may be based on a protocol outside of the scope of this | request may be based on a protocol outside of the scope of this | |||
document. The NAS checks if the available video bandwidth | document. The NAS checks if the available video bandwidth | |||
(accounting for both multicast and unicast) per subscriber and for | (accounting for both multicast and unicast) per subscriber and for | |||
the link to the OLT is sufficient for the request. If it is, it | the link to the OLT is sufficient for the request. If it is, it | |||
temporarily reserves the bandwidth and sends an ANCP admission | temporarily reserves the bandwidth and sends an ANCP admission | |||
request to the OLT for the subscriber, indicating the desired VoD | request to the OLT for the subscriber, indicating the desired VoD | |||
bandwidth. If the OLT has sufficient bandwidth on the corresponding | bandwidth. If the OLT has sufficient bandwidth on the corresponding | |||
PON, it reserves that bandwidth and returns an admission response | PON, it reserves that bandwidth and returns an accept response | |||
to the NAS. If not, it returns a reject to the NAS. If the NAS | to the NAS. If not, it returns a reject to the NAS. If the NAS | |||
receives an accept, it returns an accept to the policy server which | receives an accept, it returns an accept to the policy server which | |||
in turn returns an accept to the application server, and the video | in turn returns an accept to the application server, and the video | |||
stream is streamed to the subscriber. This interaction is shown in | stream is streamed to the subscriber. This interaction is shown in | |||
Figure 8. If the NAS does not accept the request from the policy | Figure 11. If the NAS does not accept the request from the policy | |||
server, it returns a reject. If the NAS receives a reject from the | server, it returns a reject. If the NAS receives a reject from the | |||
OLT, it returns the allocated bandwidth pool to the subscriber and | OLT, it returns the allocated bandwidth to the subscriber and | |||
the downlink to the OLT. | the downlink to the OLT. | |||
+----+ | ||||
+-------- |ONT |-------- HGW | ||||
+----+ +----+ + +----+ | ||||
|NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | ||||
| |<------------->| | + +-----+ | ||||
+----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |--------- HGW | ||||
| | | ANCP | | | ||||
| | |<-----------------> | ONU |----------HGW | ||||
| +----+ +-----+ | ||||
| | | | | ||||
|1.IGMP Join(s/*,G) +=============+ +=============+ | | ||||
|<------------------[IGMP Snooping]---------[IGMP snooping]--- | | ||||
| +=============+ +=============+ | | ||||
| |2.Admission-Request | | | ||||
| |(Flow,Customer-Port-ID) | | | ||||
| |<---------------------- | | | ||||
| 3.+===============+ | | | ||||
| [ Access Ctrl ] | | | ||||
| [ & PON B/W ] | | | ||||
| [ Admission Ctrl] | | | ||||
| +===============+ PASS | | | ||||
|4.Admission-Request | | | | ||||
| <Flow, | | | | ||||
| Customer-Port-ID> | | | | ||||
|<--------------------| | | | ||||
5.| | | | | ||||
+=================+ | | | | ||||
[Subscriber B/W ] | | | | ||||
[& OLT link B/W ] | | | | ||||
[Admission Ctrl ] | | | | ||||
+=================+PASS | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
|6.Admission-Reply-Pass | | | ||||
|<Flow,Customer-Port-ID> | | | ||||
|-------------------->| | | | ||||
| 7.+========================+ | | | ||||
| [Update Replication State] | | | ||||
| +========================+ | | | ||||
| | 8.Admission-Reply-Pass | | | ||||
| |(<Flow,Cust-Port-ID> | | | ||||
| |----------------------> | | | ||||
| | 9.+============+ | | ||||
| | [Update Repl.] | | ||||
| | [ State ] | | ||||
| | +============+ | | ||||
+----+ | Figure 9. Interaction between NAS & ANX for Multicast Bandwidth | |||
+----------|ONT |-------- HGW | Admission Control in the All-ANCP ANX control model. Similar | |||
+----+ +----+ + +----+ | functionality will be required when OMCI is enabled between the OLT | |||
|NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | and ONT/ONU in the ANCP+OMCI ANX control model. In this latter case, | |||
| |<------------->| | + +-----+ | the OLT will act as ANCP-OMCI gateway. | |||
+----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |--------- HGW | ||||
| | | ANCP | | | ||||
| | |<------------------>| ONU |----------HGW | ||||
| +----+ +-----+ | ||||
| | | | | ||||
|1.IGMP Join(s/*,G) +=============+ +=============+ | | ||||
|<------------------[IGMP Snooping]---------[IGMP snooping]--- | | ||||
| +=============+ +=============+ | | ||||
| |2.Admission-Request | | ||||
(Flow, Customer-Port-ID)| | ||||
| |<-----------------------| | ||||
| 3.+===============+ | | | ||||
| [ Access Ctrl ] | | | ||||
| [ & PON B/W ] | | | ||||
| [ Admission Ctrl] | | | ||||
| +===============+ PASS | | | ||||
|4.Admission-Request | | | | ||||
| <Flow, | | | | ||||
| Customer-Port-ID> | | | | ||||
|<--------------------| | | | ||||
5.| | | | | ||||
+=================+ | | | | ||||
[Subscriber B/W ] | | | | ||||
[& OLT link B/W ] | | | | ||||
[Admission Ctrl ] | | | | ||||
+=================+PASS | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
|6.Admission-Reply-Pass | | | ||||
|<Flow,Customer-Port-ID> | | | ||||
|-------------------->| | | | ||||
| 7.+========================+ | | | ||||
| [Update Replication State] | | | ||||
| +========================+ | | | ||||
| | 8.Admission-Reply-Pass | | | ||||
| |(<Flow,Cust-Port-ID> | | | ||||
| |----------------------->| | | ||||
| | 9.+============+ | | ||||
| | [Update Repl.] | | ||||
| | [ State ] | | ||||
| | +============+ | | ||||
Figure 6. Interaction between NAS & ANX for Multicast B/W Admission | ||||
Control | ||||
+----+ | ||||
+--------- |ONT |-------- HGW | ||||
+----+ +----+ + +----+ | ||||
|NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | ||||
| |<------------->| | + +-----+ | ||||
+----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |--------- HGW | ||||
| | | ANCP | | | ||||
| | |<------------------>| ONU |----------HGW | ||||
| +----+ +-----+ | ||||
| | | | | ||||
|1.IGMP Join(s/*,G) +=============+ +=============+ | | ||||
|<------------------[IGMP Snooping]--------[IGMP snooping]---- | | ||||
| +=============+ +=============+ | | ||||
| |2.Admission-Request | | | ||||
| |(Flow, Customer-Port-ID)| | | ||||
| |<-----------------------| | | ||||
| 2.+===============+ | | | ||||
| [ Access Ctrl ] | | | ||||
| [ & PON B/W ] | | | ||||
| [ Admission Ctrl] | | | ||||
| +===============+ PASS | | | ||||
|3.Admission-Request | | | | ||||
| <Flow,Customer-Port-ID> | | | ||||
|<--------------------| | | | ||||
4.| | | | | ||||
+==================+ | | | | ||||
[Subscriber B/W ] | | | | ||||
[& OLT link B/W ] | | | | ||||
[Admission Ctrl ] | | | | ||||
+==================+FAIL | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
|5.Admission-Reply-Fail | | | ||||
|<Flow,Cust-Port-ID> | | | | ||||
|-------------------->| | | | ||||
| 6.+==================+ | | | ||||
| [Release PON B/W ] | | | ||||
| [Remove Repl.State ] | | | ||||
| +==================+ | | | ||||
| | 7.Admission-Reply-Fail | | | ||||
| |<Flow,Cust-Port-ID> | | | ||||
| |----------------------->| | | ||||
| | 8.+============+ | | ||||
| | [Remove Repl.] | | ||||
| | [ State ] | | ||||
| | +============+ | | ||||
Figure 7. Interaction between NAS and ANX for Multicast B/W Admission | +----+ | |||
Control | +--------- |ONT |-------- HGW | |||
+------------+ 1. VoD Request | +----+ +----+ + +----+ | |||
| App. Server|<---------------------------------------------------- | |NAS |---------------| |------<PON> | |||
| Server | | | |<------------->| | + +-----+ | |||
+------------+ | +----+ ANCP |OLT | +--------- | |--------- HGW | |||
| 2. Admission-Request (VoD-Flow) | | | | ANCP | | | |||
+-------+ | | | |<------------------>| ONU |----------HGW | |||
|Policy | | | +----+ +-----+ | |||
|Server | | | | | | | |||
+-------+ | |1.IGMP Join(s/*,G) +=============+ +=============+ | | |||
| + | |<------------------[IGMP Snooping]--------[IGMP snooping]---- | | |||
|<-|---3. Admission-Request | | +=============+ +=============+ | | |||
| | | | |2.Admission-Request | | | |||
+ | 8. Admission-Reply | | |(Flow,Customer-Port-ID) | | | |||
+----+ + +----+ +-----+ | | |<---------------------- | | | |||
|NAS |---------------|OLT |------<PON>-------|ONT |------HGW----CPE | | 2.+===============+ | | | |||
| |<------------->| | +-----+ | | | [ Access Ctrl ] | | | |||
+----+ ANCP +----+ | | | | [ & PON B/W ] | | | |||
| | | | | | [ Admission Ctrl] | | | |||
4.| | | | | | +===============+ PASS | | | |||
+=================+ | | | | |3.Admission-Request | | | | |||
[Subscriber B/W ] | | | | | <Flow,Customer-Port-ID> | | | |||
[& OLT link B/W ] | | | | |<--------------------| | | | |||
[Admission Ctrl ] | | | | 4.| | | | | |||
+=================+PASS | | | | +==================+ | | | | |||
| | | | | [Subscriber B/W ] | | | | |||
| 5.Admission-Request | | | | [& OLT link B/W ] | | | | |||
|(Bandwidth,PON-Port-ID) | | | [Admission Ctrl ] | | | | |||
|-------------------> | | | | +==================+FAIL | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
| 6.+===============+ | | | |5.Admission-Reply-Fail | | | |||
| [ PON B/W ] | | | |<Flow,Cust-Port-ID> | | | | |||
| [ Admission Ctrl] | | | |-------------------->| | | | |||
| +===============+ PASS | | | | 6.+==================+ | | | |||
|7.Admission-Reply | | | | | [Release PON B/W ] | | | |||
| <PON-Port-ID> | | | | | [Remove Repl.State ] | | | |||
|<--------------------| | | | | +==================+ | | | |||
| | | | | | | 7.Admission-Reply-Fail | | | |||
| | | | | | |<Flow,Cust-Port-ID> | | | |||
| |----------------------> | | | ||||
| | 8.+============+ | | ||||
| | [Remove Repl.] | | ||||
| | [ State ] | | ||||
| | +============+ | | ||||
Figure 8. Interactions for VoD Bandwidth Admission Control | Figure 10. Interaction between NAS and ANX for Multicast Bandwidth | |||
Admission Control in the All-ANCP ANX control model. Similar | ||||
functionality will be required when OMCI is enabled between the OLT | ||||
and ONT/ONU in the ANCP+OMCI ANX control model. In this latter case, | ||||
the OLT will act as ANCP-OMCI gateway. | ||||
. A third possible approach is where the ANX is assumed to have a | +------------+ 1. VoD Request | |||
full knowledge to make an autonomous decision on admitting or | | App. Server|<---------------------------------------------------- | |||
rejecting a multicast and a unicast join. With respect to the | | Server | | |||
interaction between ONT and OLT, the procedure is similar to the | +------------+ | |||
first approach (i.e. NAS controlled replication). However, when the | | 2. Admission-Request (VoD-Flow) | |||
OLT receives an IGMP request for a subscriber, it performs | +-------+ | |||
admission control against that subscriber multicast video bandwidth | |Policy | | |||
(dedicated and shared with Video on Demand), the PON and uplink to | |Server | | |||
the GWR. It should be noted in this case that if there are multiple | +-------+ | |||
NAS-OLT links, either the link on which the multicast stream must | | + | |||
be sent is pre-determined, needs to be selected by the OLT based on | |<-|---3. Admission-Request | |||
downstream bandwidth from NAS to OLT and the selection is | | | | |||
communicated to the NAS, or the OLT has to be ready to receive the | + | 8. Admission-Reply | |||
stream on any link. If the check passes, the OLT updates the video | +----+ + +----+ +-----+ | |||
available bandwidth per PON and subscriber. The OLT adds the | |NAS |---------------|OLT |------<PON>-------|ONT |------HGW----CPE | |||
subscriber to the list of receivers and the PON to the multicast | | |<------------->| | +-----+ | | |||
tree, if it is not already on it. It also sends an ANCP request to | +----+ ANCP +----+ | | | |||
the ONT to add the subscriber access port to that channel multicast | | | | | | |||
tree, and sends an ANCP message to the NAS informing it of the | 4.| | | | | |||
subscriber and link available video bandwidth and the channel the | +=================+ | | | | |||
subscriber joined. The NAS upon receiving the ANCP information | [Subscriber B/W ] | | | | |||
message, updates the necessary information, including the OLT to | [& OLT link B/W ] | | | | |||
the multicast tree if it is not already on it. It should be noted | [Admission Ctrl ] | | | | |||
in this case that the ANCP message from the OLT to the NAS is being | +=================+PASS | | | | |||
used to add the OLT to a multicast tree as opposed to an IGMP | | | | | | |||
message. The IGMP message can also be sent by the OLT with the OLT | | 5.Admission-Request | | | | |||
acting as an IGMP proxy at the expense of added messages. In this | |(Bandwidth,PON-Port-ID) | | | |||
option, the OLT acts as the network IGMP router for the subscriber. | |-------------------> | | | | |||
| | | | | ||||
| 6.+===============+ | | | ||||
| [ PON B/W ] | | | ||||
| [ Admission Ctrl] | | | ||||
| +===============+ PASS | | | ||||
|7.Admission-Reply | | | | ||||
| <PON-Port-ID> | | | | ||||
|<------------------- | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
For unicast video streams, the policy server receiving an admission | Figure 11. Interactions for VoD Bandwidth Admission Control in the | |||
request from an application server, as described before, may query | All-ANCP ANX control model. Similar functionality will be required | |||
the OLT for admission control as it has all information. If the OLT | when OMCI is enabled between the OLT and ONT in the ANCP+OMCI ANX | |||
has sufficient bandwidth for the stream it reserves that bandwidth | control model. In this latter case, the OLT will act as ANCP-OMCI | |||
for the subscriber, PON and OLT uplink to the NAS and returns an | gateway. | |||
accept to the policy server. It also updates the NAS via an ANCP | ||||
message of the subscriber available video bandwidth. If the OLT | ||||
rejects the policy server request, it will return a reject to the | ||||
policy server. | ||||
It should be noted that if the policy server adjacency is with the | -A third possible approach is where the ANX is assumed to have a | |||
NAS, the policy server may make the admission request to the NAS. | full knowledge to make an autonomous decision on admitting or | |||
The NAS then sends an ANCP admission request to the OLT on behalf of | rejecting a multicast and a unicast join. With respect to the | |||
the policy server. The NAS returns an accept or reject to the policy | interaction between ONT/ONU and OLT, the procedure is similar to the | |||
server if it gets a reject or accept, respectively, from the OLT. | first approach (i.e. NAS controlled replication). However, when the | |||
OLT receives an IGMP request from a subscriber, it performs | ||||
admission control against that subscriber multicast video bandwidth | ||||
(dedicated and shared with Video on Demand), the PON and uplink to | ||||
the GWR. It should be noted in this case that if there are multiple | ||||
NAS-OLT links, either the link on which the multicast stream must | ||||
be sent is pre-determined, needs to be selected by the OLT based on | ||||
downstream bandwidth from NAS to OLT and the selection is | ||||
communicated to the NAS, or the OLT has to be ready to receive the | ||||
stream on any link. If the check passes, the OLT updates the video | ||||
available bandwidth per PON and subscriber. The OLT adds the | ||||
subscriber to the list of receivers and the PON to the multicast | ||||
tree, if it is not already on it. It also sends an ANCP request to | ||||
the ONT/ONU to add the subscriber access port to that channel | ||||
multicast tree, and sends an ANCP message to the NAS informing it of | ||||
the subscriber and link available video bandwidth and the channel the | ||||
subscriber joined. The NAS upon receiving the ANCP information | ||||
message, updates the necessary information, including the OLT to the | ||||
multicast tree if it is not already on it. It should be noted | ||||
in this case that the ANCP message from the OLT to the NAS is being | ||||
used to add the OLT to a multicast tree as opposed to an IGMP | ||||
message. The IGMP message can also be sent by the OLT with the OLT | ||||
acting as an IGMP proxy at the expense of added messages. In this | ||||
option, the OLT acts as the network IGMP router for the subscriber. | ||||
6.3 Multicast Accounting | For unicast video streams, the policy server receiving an admission | |||
request from an application server, as described before, may query | ||||
the OLT for admission control as it has all information. If the OLT | ||||
has sufficient bandwidth for the stream it reserves that bandwidth | ||||
for the subscriber, PON and OLT uplink to the NAS and returns an | ||||
accept to the policy server. It also updates the NAS via an ANCP | ||||
message of the subscriber available video bandwidth. If the OLT | ||||
rejects the policy server request, it will return a reject to the | ||||
policy server. | ||||
It may be desirable to perform accurate per-user or per Access Loop | It should be noted that if the policy server adjacency is with the | |||
time or volume based accounting. In case the ANX is performing the | NAS, the policy server may make the admission request to the NAS. | |||
traffic replication process, it knows when replication of a multicast | The NAS then sends an ANCP admission request to the OLT on behalf of | |||
flow to a particular Access Port or user starts and stops. Multicast | the policy server. The NAS returns an accept or reject to the policy | |||
accounting can be addressed in two ways: | server if it gets a reject or accept, respectively, from the OLT. | |||
o ANX keeps track of when replication starts or stops, and | 7.3. Multicast Accounting | |||
reports this information to the NAS for further processing. In | ||||
this case, ANCP can be used to send the information from the ANX | ||||
to the NAS. This can be done with the Information Report | ||||
message. The NAS can then generate the appropriate time and/or | ||||
volume accounting information per Access Loop and per multicast | ||||
flow, to be sent to the accounting system. The ANCP requirements | ||||
to support this approach are specified in [ANCP-FRAMEWORK. If | ||||
the replication function is distributed between the OLT and ONT | ||||
a query from the NAS will result in OLT generating a query to | ||||
the ONT. | ||||
o ANX keeps track of when replication starts or stops, and | It may be desirable to perform accurate per-user or per Access Loop | |||
generates the time and/or volume based accounting information | time or volume based accounting. In case the ANX is performing the | |||
per Access Loop and per multicast flow, before sending it to a | traffic replication process, it knows when replication of a multicast | |||
central accounting system for logging. Since ANX communicates | flow to a particular Access Port or user starts and stops. Multicast | |||
with this accounting system directly, the approach does not | accounting can be addressed in two ways: | |||
require the use of ANCP. It is therefore beyond the scope of | ||||
this document; | ||||
It may also be desirable for the NAS to have the capability to | - ANX keeps track of when replication starts or stops, and reports | |||
asynchronously query the ANX to obtain an instantaneous status report | this information to the NAS for further processing. In this case, | |||
related to multicast flows currently replicated by the ANX. Such a | ANCP can be used to send the information from the ANX to the NAS. | |||
reporting functionality could be useful for troubleshooting and | This can be done with the Information Report message. The NAS can | |||
monitoring purposes. If the replication function in the ANX is | then generate the appropriate time and/or volume accounting | |||
distributed between the OLT and the ONT, then for some of the | information per Access Loop and per multicast flow, to be sent to the | |||
information required by the NAS (such as the list of access-ports on | accounting system. The ANCP requirements to support this approach are | |||
which a flow is being forwarded or list of flows being forwarded on | specified in [ANCP-FRAMEWORK. If the replication function is | |||
an access-port), a query to the OLT from the NAS will result in a | distributed between the OLT and ONT/ONU, a query from the NAS will | |||
query from OLT to ONT. The OLT responds back to the NAS when it | result in OLT generating a query to the ONT/ONU. | |||
receives the response from the ONT. Also, if the list of PONs on | ||||
which replication is happening for a multicast channel or the list of | ||||
channels being replicated on a PON is what is desired, the OLT can | ||||
return this information. | ||||
7 Remote Connectivity Check | - ANX keeps track of when replication starts or stops, and | |||
generates the time and/or volume based accounting information per | ||||
Access Loop and per multicast flow, before sending it to a central | ||||
accounting system for logging. Since ANX communicates with this | ||||
accounting system directly, the approach does not require the use of | ||||
ANCP. It is therefore beyond the scope of this document; | ||||
In an end-to-end Ethernet aggregation network, end-to-end Ethernet | It may also be desirable for the NAS to have the capability to | |||
OAM as specified in IEEE 802.1ag and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1730/1731 | asynchronously query the ANX to obtain an instantaneous status report | |||
can provide Access Loop connectivity testing and fault isolation. | related to multicast flows currently replicated by the ANX. Such a | |||
However, most HGWs do not yet support these standard Ethernet OAM | reporting functionality could be useful for troubleshooting and | |||
procedures. Also, in a mixed Ethernet and ATM access network (e.g. | monitoring purposes. If the replication function in the ANX is | |||
Ethernet based aggregation upstream from the OLT, and BPON | distributed between the OLT and the ONT/ONU, then for some of the | |||
downstream), interworking functions for end-to-end OAM are not yet | information required by the NAS (such as the list of access-ports on | |||
standardized and widely available. Until such mechanisms become | which a flow is being forwarded or list of flows being forwarded on | |||
standardized and widely available, Access Node Control mechanism | an access-port), a query to the OLT from the NAS will result in a | |||
between NAS and ANX can be used to provide a simple mechanism to test | query from OLT to ONT/ONU. The OLT responds back to the NAS when it | |||
connectivity of an access-loop from the NAS. | receives the response from the ONT/ONU. Also, if the list of PONs on | |||
which replication is happening for a multicast channel or the list of | ||||
channels being replicated on a PON is what is desired, the OLT can | ||||
return this information. | ||||
Triggered by a local management interface, the NAS can use the Access | 8. Remote Connectivity Check | |||
Node Control Mechanism (Control Request Message) to initiate an | ||||
Access Loop test between Access Node and HGW. On reception of the | ||||
ANCP message, the OLT can trigger native OAM procedures defined for | ||||
BPON in [G.983.1] and for GPON in [G.984.1]. The Access Node can send | ||||
the result of the test to the NAS via a Control Response message. | ||||
8 Access Topology Discovery | In an end-to-end Ethernet aggregation network, end-to-end Ethernet | |||
OAM as specified in IEEE 802.1ag and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1730/1731 | ||||
can provide Access Loop connectivity testing and fault isolation. | ||||
However, most HGWs do not yet support these standard Ethernet OAM | ||||
procedures. Also, in a mixed Ethernet and ATM access network (e.g., | ||||
Ethernet based aggregation upstream from the OLT, and BPON | ||||
downstream), interworking functions for end-to-end OAM are not yet | ||||
standardized or widely available. Until such mechanisms become | ||||
standardized and widely available, Access Node Control mechanism | ||||
between NAS and ANX can be used to provide a simple mechanism to test | ||||
connectivity of an access-loop from the NAS. | ||||
In order to avoid congestion in the network, and manage and utilize | Triggered by a local management interface, the NAS can use the Access | |||
the network resources better, and ensure subscriber fairness, NAS | Node Control Mechanism (Control Request Message) to initiate an | |||
performs hierarchical shaping and scheduling of the traffic by | Access Loop test between Access Node and HGW or ONT/ONU. On reception | |||
modeling different congestion points in the network (such as the | of the ANCP message, the OLT can trigger native OAM procedures | |||
last-mile, Access Node uplink, and the access facing port). | defined for BPON in [G.983.1] and for GPON in [G.984.1]. The Access | |||
Node can send the result of the test to the NAS via a Control | ||||
Response message. | ||||
Such mechanisms require that the NAS gains knowledge about the | 9. Access Topology Discovery | |||
topology of the access network, the various links being used and | ||||
their respective rates. Some of the information required is somewhat | ||||
dynamic in nature (e.g. DSL line rate in case the last mile is xDSL | ||||
based e.g. in case of "PON fed DSLAMs" for FTTC/FTTN scenarios), | ||||
hence cannot come from a provisioning and/or inventory management OSS | ||||
system. Some of the information varies less frequently (e.g. | ||||
capacity of the OLT uplink), but nevertheless needs to be kept | ||||
strictly in sync between the actual capacity of the uplink and the | ||||
image the NAS has of it. | ||||
OSS systems are rarely able to enforce in a reliable and scalable | In order to avoid congestion in the network, manage and utilize the | |||
manner the consistency of such data, notably across organizational | network resources better, and ensure subscriber fairness, NAS | |||
boundaries under certain deployment scenarios. The Access Topology | performs hierarchical shaping and scheduling of the traffic by | |||
Discovery function allows the NAS to perform these advanced functions | modeling different congestion points in the network (such as the | |||
without having to depend on an error-prone and possibly complex | last-mile, Access Node uplink, and the access facing port). | |||
integration with an OSS system. | ||||
The rate of the access-loop can be communicated via ANCP (Information | Such mechanisms require that the NAS gains knowledge about the | |||
Report Message) from the ONT to the OLT, and from OLT to the NAS. | topology of the access network, the various links being used and | |||
Additionally, during the time the DSL NT is active, data rate changes | their respective rates. Some of the information required is somewhat | |||
can occur due to environmental conditions (the DSL Access Loop can | dynamic in nature (e.g. DSL line rate in case the last mile is xDSL | |||
get "out of sync" and can retrain to a lower value, or the DSL Access | based, e.g., in case of "PON fed DSLAMs" for FTTC/FTTB scenarios), | |||
Loop could use Seamless Rate Adaptation making the actual data rate | hence cannot come from a provisioning and/or inventory management OSS | |||
fluctuate while the line is active). In this case, ANX sends an | system. Some of the information varies less frequently (e.g., | |||
additional Information Report to the NAS each time the Access Loop | capacity of the OLT uplink), but nevertheless needs to be kept | |||
attributes change above a threshold value. | strictly in sync between the actual capacity of the uplink and the | |||
image the NAS has of it. | ||||
9 Security Considerations | OSS systems are rarely able to enforce in a reliable and scalable | |||
manner the consistency of such data, notably across organizational | ||||
boundaries under certain deployment scenarios. The Access Topology | ||||
Discovery function allows the NAS to perform these advanced functions | ||||
without having to depend on an error-prone and possibly complex | ||||
integration with an OSS system. | ||||
[ANCP-SECURITY] lists the ANCP related security threats that could | The rate of the access-loop can be communicated via ANCP (Information | |||
be encountered on the Access Node and the NAS. It develops a threat | Report Message) from the ONT/ONU to the OLT in the All-ANCP ANX | |||
model for ANCP security, and lists the security functions that are | control model or via OMCI in the ANCP+OMCI ANX control model, and | |||
required at the ANCP level. | then from OLT to the NAS via ANCP. Additionally, during the time the | |||
DSL NT is active, data rate changes can occur due to environmental | ||||
conditions (the DSL Access Loop can get "out of sync" and can retrain | ||||
to a lower value, or the DSL Access Loop could use Seamless Rate | ||||
Adaptation making the actual data rate fluctuate while the line is | ||||
active). In this case, ANX sends an additional Information Report to | ||||
the NAS each time the Access Loop attributes change above a threshold | ||||
value. Existing DSL procedures are not applicable in this case | ||||
because an adapted message flow and additional TLVs are needed. | ||||
With Multicast handling as described in this document, ANCP protocol | +--------+ | |||
activity between the ANX and the NAS is triggered by join/leave | | Policy | | |||
requests coming from the end-user equipment. This could potentially | | Server | | |||
be used for denial of service attack against the ANX and/or the NAS. | +--------+ + +---+ +---+ | |||
| + +-----------|ONT|---- |HGW| | ||||
| + | +---+ +---+ | ||||
| +--------------- |-------------------+ | ||||
+----+ | +----+ | +-----+ | +---+ | ||||
|NAS |------------ | | | | | |-|-|HGW| | ||||
| |<----------> | | | | |ONT/ | | +---+ | ||||
+----+ ANCP | |OLT |------<PON>--------- |ONU | | | ||||
| | | | | | | +---+ | ||||
| | | |<------------------> | |---|HGW| | ||||
| | +----+ OMCI +-----+ | +---+ | ||||
| +------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | Access Node | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| |------GPON Ranging------ | | ||||
| Port Status Message| ONT Port UP | | ||||
|<------------------ |<----------------------- | | ||||
|Port Configuration |GPON Line/Service Profile| | ||||
|------------------> |<----------------------> | | ||||
| ONT/ONI Port UP| | | ||||
|<------------------ | | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| ANCP | OMCI | | ||||
<-------------------><-----------------------> | | ||||
PPP, DHCP, IP | ||||
<-----------------------------------------------------------> | ||||
To mitigate this risk, the NAS and ANX MAY implement control plane | Figure 12: Message Flow for the use case of Topology Discovery for | |||
protection mechanisms such as limiting the number of multicast flows | the ANCP+OMCI access control model. | |||
a given user can simultaneously join, or limiting the maximum rate of | ||||
join/leave from a given user. | ||||
Protection against invalid or unsubscribed flows can be deployed via | Figure 12 depicts a message flow for topology discovery when using | |||
provisioning black lists as close to the subscriber as possible (e.g. | the ANCP+OMCI access control model. Basically, when an ONT/ONU gets | |||
in the ONT). | connected to a PON, the OLT detects a new device and a GPON Ranging | |||
process starts. During this process the ONT/ONU becomes authorized by | ||||
the OLT and identified by ONT/ONU ID, PON Port ID and max Bandwidth. | ||||
This port status is reported via ANCP to the NAS and then potentially | ||||
the policy server via another mechanism that is out of scope of this | ||||
document. In a second step after GPON Service profile is assigned | ||||
from OLT to ONT/ONU, the OLT reports the final status to NAS with | ||||
information about service profile and other information such as the | ||||
ONT/ONU port rate to the subscriber for instance. | ||||
10 Differences in ANCP applicability between DSL and PON | 10.Access Loop Configuration | |||
As it currently stands, both ANCP framework [ANCP-FRAMEWORK] and | Topology Discovery reports access port identification to NAS when | |||
protocol [ANCP-PROTOCOL] are defined in context of DSL access. Due to | sending an Access Port Discovery message. This informs NAS | |||
inherent differences between PON and DSL access technologies, ANCP | identification of PON port on an Access Node. Based on Access Port | |||
needs a few extensions for supporting the use-cases outlined in this | Identification and on customer identification, service related | |||
document for PON based access. These specific differences and | parameters could be configured on an OLT and an ONU/ONT. | |||
extensions are outlined below. | ||||
o In PON, the access-node functionality is split between OLT and ONT. | Service related parameters could be sent to OLT via ANCP before or | |||
Therefore, ANCP interaction between NAS and AN translates to | after an ONU/ONT is up. Sending of ANCP loop Configuration messages | |||
transactions between NAS and OLT and between OLT and ONT. The | from NAS can be triggered by a management system or by customer | |||
processing of ANCP messages (e.g. for multicast replication control) | identification and authentication after Topology Discovery. It may be | |||
on the OLT can trigger generation of ANCP messages from OLT to ONT. | used for first time configuration (zero touch) or for | |||
Similarly, ANCP messages from ONT to the OLT can trigger ANCP | updating/upgrading customer's profile like C-VLAN ID, S-VLAN ID, and | |||
exchange between the ONT and the NAS (e.g. admission-request | service bandwidth. | |||
messages).This is illustrated in the generic message flow in Figure 3 | ||||
of section 5. In case of DSL, the ANCP exchange is contained between | ||||
two network elements (NAS and the DSLAM). | ||||
o The PON connection to the ONT is a shared medium between multiple | Parameters of UNI (subscriber interface to HGW/CPE) of ONU/ONT can | |||
ONTs on the same PON. The local-loop in case of DSL is point-to- | also be configured via ANCP. When the ONU/ONT supports ANCP, | |||
point. In case of DSL access network, the access facing port on the | parameters of the UNI on ONU/ONT are sent to the ONU/ONT via ANCP. If | |||
NAS (i.e. port to the network between NAS and the DSLAM), and the | the ONU/ONT does not support ANCP, but only OMCI, parameters have to | |||
access-facing ports on the DSLAM (i.e. customer's local-loop) are the | be sent from the NAS to the OLT via ANCP first. Then, the OLT | |||
two bandwidth constraint points that need to be considered for | translates such configuration into OMCI and sends it to the ONU/ONT. | |||
performing bandwidth based admission control for multicast video and | ||||
VOD delivered to the customer. In case of PON access, in addition to | ||||
the bandwidth constraint on the NAS to OLT facing ports, and the | ||||
subscriber allocated bandwidth for video services, the bandwidth | ||||
available on the PON for video is an additional constraint that needs | ||||
to be considered for bandwidth based admission control. If the | ||||
bandwidth control is centralized in NAS (as described in option 1 of | ||||
section 6.2), then the NAS needs to support additional logic to | ||||
consider available PON bandwidth before admitting a multicast request | ||||
or a VOD request by the user. Accordingly, ANCP needs to identify the | ||||
customer access port and the PON on which the customer ONT is. If the | ||||
PON bandwidth control is performed on the OLT (as defined in second | ||||
option in section 6.2), then additional ANCP request and response | ||||
messages are required for NAS to query the OLT to determine available | ||||
PON bandwidth when a request to admit a VOD flow is received on the | ||||
NAS (as shown in figure 8 in section 6.2) or for the OLT to inform | ||||
the NAS what stream bandwidth is sent to the subscriber for the NAS | ||||
to take appropriate action (e.g., bandwidth adjustment for various | ||||
types of traffic). | ||||
o In PON, the multicast replication can potentially be performed on | 9 Security Considerations | |||
three different network elements: (1) on the NAS (2) on the OLT for | ||||
replication to multiple PON ports and (3) on the ONT/ONU for | ||||
replication to multiple customer ports. In case of DSL, the | ||||
replication can potentially be performed on NAS and/or the DSLAM. | ||||
Section 6.2 defines options for multicast replication in case of PON. | ||||
In the first option, the multicast replication is done on the AN, but | ||||
is controlled from NAS via ANCP (based on the reception of per- | ||||
customer IGMP messages on the NAS). In this option, the NAS needs to | ||||
supply to the OLT the set of PON-customer-IDs (as defined in section | ||||
2.1) to which the multicast stream needs to be replicated. The PON- | ||||
customer-ID identifies the OLT and the PON ports on the OLT as well | ||||
as the ONT and the access-ports on the ONT where the multicast stream | ||||
needs to be replicated. Upon receiving the request to update its | ||||
multicast replication state, the OLT MUST update its replication | ||||
state with the indicated PON ports, but MAY also need to interact | ||||
with the ONT via ANCP to update the multicast replication state on | ||||
the ONT with the set of access-ports (as indicated by the NAS).In | ||||
case of DSL, the DSLAM only needs to update its own replication state | ||||
based on the set of access-ports indicated by the NAS. | ||||
o For reporting purposes, ANCP must enable the NAS to query the OLT | [ANCP-SECURITY] lists the ANCP related security threats that could be | |||
for channels replicated on a PON or a list of PONs and to specific | encountered on the Access Node and the NAS. It develops a threat | |||
access ports. The latter should trigger the OLT to query the ONT for | model for ANCP security, and lists the security functions that are | |||
a list of channels being replicated on all access ports or on | required at the ANCP level. | |||
specific access ports to the premise. In DSL case, it is sufficient | ||||
to query the DSLAM for a list of channels being replicated on an | ||||
access port or a list of access ports. | ||||
11 ANCP versus OMCI between the OLT and ONT | With Multicast handling as described in this document, ANCP protocol | |||
activity between the ANX and the NAS is triggered by join/leave | ||||
requests coming from the end-user equipment. This could potentially | ||||
be used for denial of service attack against the ANX and/or the NAS. | ||||
ONT Management and Control Interface (OMCI) [OMCI] is specified for | To mitigate this risk, the NAS and ANX MAY implement control plane | |||
in-band ONT management via the OLT. This includes configuring | protection mechanisms such as limiting the number of multicast flows | |||
parameters on the ONT. Such configuration can include adding an | a given user can simultaneously join, or limiting the maximum rate of | |||
access port on the ONT to a multicast tree and the ONT to a multicast | join/leave from a given user. | |||
tree. Thus, OMCI can be a potential replacement for ANCP between the | ||||
OLT and ONT, albeit it may not be suitable protocol for dynamic | ||||
transactions as required for the multicast application. | ||||
If OMCI is selected to be enabled between the OLT and ONT to carry | Protection against invalid or unsubscribed flows can be deployed via | |||
the same information elements that would be carried over ANCP, the | provisioning black lists as close to the subscriber as possible (e.g. | |||
OLT must perform the necessary translation between ANCP and OMCI for | in the ONT). | |||
replication control messages received via ANCP. OMCI is an already | ||||
available control channel, while ANCP requires a TCP/IP stack on the | ||||
ONT that can be used by an ANCP client and accordingly it requires | ||||
that the ONT be IP addressable for ANCP. Most ONTs today have a | ||||
TCP/IP stack used by certain applications (e.g., VoIP, IGMP | ||||
snooping). ANCP may use the same IP address that is often assigned to | ||||
SIP or depending on the implementation may require a different | ||||
address. Sharing the same IP address between SIP and ANCP may have | ||||
other network implications on traffic routing. Using a separate IP | ||||
address for the purpose of ONT management or ANCP specifically may | ||||
often be required when supporting ANCP. These considerations may | ||||
favor OMCI in certain environments. However, OMCI will not allow | ||||
some of the transactions required in approach 2, where the ONT sends | ||||
unsolicited requests to the OLT rather than being queried or | ||||
configured by OLT requests. | ||||
12 IANA Considerations | 10 Differences in ANCP applicability between DSL and PON | |||
This document does not require actions by IANA. | As it currently stands, both ANCP framework [ANCP-FRAMEWORK] and | |||
protocol [ANCP-PROTOCOL] are defined in context of DSL access. Due to | ||||
inherent differences between PON and DSL access technologies, ANCP | ||||
needs a few extensions for supporting the use-cases outlined in this | ||||
document for PON based access. These specific differences and | ||||
extensions are outlined below. | ||||
13 Acknowledgements | - In PON, the access-node functionality is split between OLT and ONT. | |||
Therefore, ANCP interaction between NAS and AN translates to | ||||
transactions between NAS and OLT and between OLT and ONT. The | ||||
processing of ANCP messages (e.g. for multicast replication control) | ||||
on the OLT can trigger generation of ANCP messages from OLT to ONT. | ||||
Similarly, ANCP messages from ONT to the OLT can trigger ANCP | ||||
exchange between the ONT and the NAS (e.g. admission-request | ||||
messages). This is illustrated in the generic message flows in | ||||
Figures 5 | ||||
and 6 of section 6. In case of DSL, the ANCP exchange is contained | ||||
between | ||||
two network elements (NAS and the DSLAM). | ||||
14 References | - The PON connection to the ONT is a shared medium between multiple | |||
ONTs on the same PON. The local-loop in case of DSL is point-to- | ||||
point. In case of DSL access network, the access facing port on the | ||||
NAS (i.e. port to the network between NAS and the DSLAM), and the | ||||
access-facing ports on the DSLAM (i.e. customer's local-loop) are the | ||||
two bandwidth constraint points that need to be considered for | ||||
performing bandwidth based admission control for multicast video and | ||||
VOD delivered to the customer. In case of PON access, in addition to | ||||
the bandwidth constraint on the NAS to OLT facing ports, and the | ||||
subscriber allocated bandwidth for video services, the bandwidth | ||||
available on the PON for video is an additional constraint that needs | ||||
to be considered for bandwidth based admission control. If the | ||||
bandwidth control is centralized in NAS (as described in option 1 of | ||||
section 7.2), then the NAS needs to support additional logic to | ||||
consider available PON bandwidth before admitting a multicast request | ||||
or a VOD request by the user. Accordingly, ANCP needs to identify the | ||||
customer access port and the PON on which the customer ONT is. If the | ||||
PON bandwidth control is performed on the OLT (as defined in second | ||||
option in section 7.2), then additional ANCP request and response | ||||
messages are required for NAS to query the OLT to determine available | ||||
PON bandwidth when a request to admit a VOD flow is received on the | ||||
NAS (as shown in Figure 9 in section 7.2) or for the OLT to inform | ||||
the NAS what stream bandwidth is sent to the subscriber for the NAS | ||||
to take appropriate action (e.g., bandwidth adjustment for various | ||||
types of traffic). | ||||
14.1 Normative References | - In PON, the multicast replication can potentially be performed on | |||
three different network elements: (1) on the NAS (2) on the OLT for | ||||
replication to multiple PON ports and (3) on the ONT/ONU for | ||||
replication to multiple customer ports. In case of DSL, the | ||||
replication can potentially be performed on NAS and/or the DSLAM. | ||||
Section 7.2 defines options for multicast replication in case of PON. | ||||
In the first option, the multicast replication is done on the AN, but | ||||
is controlled from NAS via ANCP (based on the reception of per- | ||||
customer IGMP messages on the NAS). In this option, the NAS needs to | ||||
supply to the OLT the set of PON-customer-IDs (as defined in section | ||||
3) to which the multicast stream needs to be replicated. The PON- | ||||
customer-ID identifies the OLT and the PON ports on the OLT as well | ||||
as the ONT and the access-ports on the ONT where the multicast stream | ||||
needs to be replicated. Upon receiving the request to update its | ||||
multicast replication state, the OLT MUST update its replication | ||||
state with the indicated PON ports, but MAY also need to interact | ||||
with the ONT via ANCP to update the multicast replication state on | ||||
the ONT with the set of access-ports (as indicated by the NAS).In | ||||
case of DSL, the DSLAM only needs to update its own replication state | ||||
based on the set of access-ports indicated by the NAS. | ||||
[RFC2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., | - For reporting purposes, ANCP must enable the NAS to query the OLT | |||
and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over | for channels replicated on a PON or a list of PONs and to specific | |||
Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999. | access ports. The latter should trigger the OLT to query the ONT for | |||
a list of channels being replicated on all access ports or on | ||||
specific access ports to the premise. In DSL case, it is sufficient | ||||
to query the DSLAM for a list of channels being replicated on an | ||||
access port or a list of access ports. | ||||
[RFC2684] Grossman, D. and J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation | 11.ANCP versus OMCI between the OLT and ONT/ONU | |||
over ATM Adaptation Layer 5", RFC 2684, September 1999. | ||||
14.2 Informative References | ONT Management and Control Interface (OMCI) [OMCI] is specified for | |||
in-band ONT management via the OLT. This includes configuring | ||||
parameters on the ONT/ONU. Such configuration can include adding an | ||||
access port on the ONT to a multicast tree and the ONT to a multicast | ||||
tree. Thus, OMCI can be a potential replacement for ANCP between the | ||||
OLT and ONT/ONU, albeit it may not be suitable protocol for dynamic | ||||
transactions as required for the multicast application. | ||||
[RFC2881] Mitton, D. and M. Beadles, "Network Access Server | If OMCI is selected to be enabled between the OLT and ONT/ONU to | |||
Requirements Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS Model", RFC 2881, Jul | carry the same information elements that would be carried over ANCP, | |||
2000. | the OLT must perform the necessary translation between ANCP and OMCI | |||
for replication control messages received via ANCP. OMCI is an | ||||
already available control channel, while ANCP requires a TCP/IP stack | ||||
on the ONT/ONU that can be used by an ANCP client and accordingly it | ||||
requires that the ONT/ONU be IP addressable for ANCP. Most ONTs/ONUs | ||||
today have a TCP/IP stack used by certain applications (e.g., VoIP, | ||||
IGMP snooping). ANCP may use the same IP address that is often | ||||
assigned to SIP or depending on the implementation may require a | ||||
different address. Sharing the same IP address between SIP and ANCP | ||||
may have other network implications on traffic routing. Using a | ||||
separate IP address for the purpose of ONT/ONU management or ANCP | ||||
specifically may often be required when supporting ANCP. These | ||||
considerations may favor OMCI in certain environments. However, OMCI | ||||
will not allow some of the transactions required in approach 2, where | ||||
the ONT/ONU sends unsolicited requests to the OLT rather than being | ||||
queried or configured by OLT requests. | ||||
[ANCP-FRAMEWORK] Ooghe, S., et al., "Framework and Requirements | 12. IANA Considerations | |||
for Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Networks", RFC 5851, | ||||
May 2010. | ||||
[G.983.1] ITU-T recommendation G.983.1, Broadband optical access | This document does not require actions by IANA. | |||
systems based on Passive Optical Networks (PON). | ||||
[G.984.1] ITU-T recommendation G.984.1 Gigabit-capable Passive | 13. Acknowledgements | |||
Optical Networks (G-PON): General characteristics | 14. References | |||
[TR-101] Cohen, A. and E. Shrum, "Migration to Ethernet-Based DSL | 14.1. Normative References | |||
Aggregation", DSL Forum TR-101, May 2006. | ||||
[ANCP-SECURITY] Moustafa, H., Tschofenig, H., and S. De Cnodder, | [RFC2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., | |||
"Security Threats and Security Requirements for the Access Node | and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over | |||
Control Protocol (ANCP)", RFC 5713, January 2010. | Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999. | |||
[OMCI] ITU-T recommendation G.984.4 GPON ONT Management and Control | [RFC2684] Grossman, D. and J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation | |||
Interface (OMCI) Specifications. | over ATM Adaptation Layer 5", RFC 2684, September 1999. | |||
[ANCP-PROTOCOL] Wadhwa, S et al, "Protocol for Access Node Control | 14.2. Informative References | |||
Mechanism in Broadband Networks", draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-12.txt, | ||||
August 2010, work in progress. | ||||
Author's Addresses | [RFC2881] Mitton, D. and M. Beadles, "Network Access Server | |||
Requirements Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS Model", RFC 2881, Jul | ||||
2000. | ||||
Nabil Bitar | [ANCP-FRAMEWORK] Ooghe, S., et al., "Framework and Requirements | |||
Verizon | for Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Networks", RFC 5851, | |||
117 West Street | May 2010. | |||
Waltham, MA 02451 | ||||
Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com | [G.983.1] ITU-T recommendation G.983.1, Broadband optical access | |||
systems based on Passive Optical Networks (PON). | ||||
Sanjay Wadhwa | [G.984.1] ITU-T recommendation G.984.1 Gigabit-capable Passive | |||
Juniper Networks | Optical Networks (G-PON): General characteristics | |||
10 Technology Park Drive | ||||
Westford, MA 01886 | ||||
Email: swadhwa@juniper.net | [TR-101] Cohen, A. and E. Shrum, "Migration to Ethernet-Based DSL | |||
Aggregation", DSL Forum TR-101, May 2006. | ||||
[ANCP-SECURITY] Moustafa, H., Tschofenig, H., and S. De Cnodder, | ||||
"Security Threats and Security Requirements for the Access Node | ||||
Control Protocol (ANCP)", RFC 5713, January 2010. | ||||
[OMCI] ITU-T recommendation G.984.4 GPON ONT Management and Control | ||||
Interface (OMCI) Specifications. | ||||
[ANCP-PROTOCOL] Wadhwa, S et al, "Protocol for Access Node Control | ||||
Mechanism in Broadband Networks", draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-17.txt, | ||||
April 2011, work in progress. | ||||
Authors' Addresses | ||||
Nabil Bitar | ||||
Verizon | ||||
60 Sylvan Road | ||||
Waltham, MA 02451 | ||||
Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com | ||||
Sanjay Wadhwa | ||||
Alcatel-Lucent | ||||
701 East Middlefield Road | ||||
Mountain View, CA, 94043 | ||||
Email: sanjay.wadhwa@alcatel-lucent.com | ||||
Hongyu Li | ||||
Email: hongyu.lihongyu@huawei.com | ||||
Thomas Haag | ||||
Email: HaagT@telekom.de | ||||
End of changes. 182 change blocks. | ||||
1252 lines changed or deleted | 1490 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |