|
|
1 |
(% class="row" %) |
|
|
2 |
((( |
|
|
3 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-8 test-report-content" %) |
|
|
4 |
((( |
|
|
5 |
---- |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) plays a critical role in daily network monitoring. ITU-T Y.1731 provides comprehensive guidelines for performance and fault management in Ethernet-based networks. In our testing, we specifically focused on performance management metrics, including frame loss ratio and frame delay. |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
We set up an EVPN-VPWS service between two DUTs and used Calnex SNE Ignite to introduce controlled packet drops and delays. First, we sent end-to-end unicast traffic with no impairment; the DUT Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) output showed no packet loss and minimal delay. Next, we introduced a 30% bidirectional packet drop and a 30ms bidirectional delay. The measured CFM latency matched the impairment tool’s configuration. For frame loss, although the impairment tool was set to drop 30% of packets in each direction, the cumulative effect resulted in about 49% total frame loss (If we send 100 requests in one direction, the destination will receive only 70 (30% drop). Then the destination will send 70 responses to the source, and the source will receive only 49 (30% drop). So it's 49% in math). The DUT CFM reported a loss ratio consistent with this calculation, around 50%, as expected. |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
[[~[~[Figure 25: EVPN performance management~>~>image:486469475701620737_MPLS-1.26.png~|~|alt="Figure 25" width="550"~]~]>>attach:486469475701620737_MPLS-1.26.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
Next, we addressed fault management by simulating a fault: we shut down the link between the PE and CE. The CFM output on the DUT confirmed that the EVPN-VPWS service was down. After restoring the link, the EVPN-VPWS was up again. The following is the topology we used in the test. |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
[[~[~[Figure 26: EVPN fault management~>~>image:486469475701686273_MPLS-1.27_0.png~|~|alt="Figure 26" width="550"~]~]>>attach:486469475701686273_MPLS-1.27_0.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
17 |
The following table shows the DUT combination in our test. |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
19 |
{{container cssClass="tc-role-table"}} |
|
|
20 |
(% class="table-bordered" %) |
|
|
21 |
|=Combination|=PE1|=PE2 |
|
|
22 |
|1|Cisco 8711-48Z-M|HPE MX304 |
|
|
23 |
|2|Ciena 5164|Nokia 7750SR-1 |
|
|
24 |
|3|Ciena 8192|Cisco 8711-48Z-M |
|
|
25 |
|4|Ciena 8192|HPE MX304 |
|
|
26 |
|5|Ciena 5164|Ericsson RAN Connect 6682 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
28 |
{{/container}} |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
30 |
Table 2: EVPN fault management participants list |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
32 |
(% id="prev-next-links" %) |
|
|
33 |
|[[< Previous>>doc:EVPN Interworking with IPVPN]]|[[Next ~>>>doc:IPv6 VTEPs with Numbered Underlay]] |
|
|
34 |
))) |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
36 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-4 test-report-sidebar" %) |
|
|
37 |
((( |
|
|
38 |
{{box}} |
|
|
39 |
{{include reference="Main.EANTC Transport & Cloud Networks Interop Test Report 2026.Sidebar Nav"/}} |
|
|
40 |
{{/box}} |
|
|
41 |
))) |
|
|
42 |
))) |
