Power utilities are transitioning from outdated SDH/SONET networks to future-proof packet technologies, notably Carrier Ethernet (CE), MPLS, and MPLS-TP. Carrier Ethernet emerges as the preferred choice due to its superior cybersecurity, maturity, and compatibility with teleprotection needs, while MPLS and MPLS-TP are deemed less suitable for critical infrastructure due to their limitations. The document highlights key considerations for migrating operational networks, emphasizing the importance of resiliency, security, and manageability in modern communication systems.

1. Carrier Ethernet vs MPLSin Power Utility Communications
What to consider when migrating to next-gen operational networks
October 2014

2. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 2
•
Technology is not suitable for new applications and required bandwidth
•
Equipment israpidly becoming obsolete
–
EoLby Sycamore, Coastcom, Carrier Access, Alcatel’s Mainstreet, Tellabs, Nokia, NSN
•
Maintenance is expensive due to lack of components
•
Finding staff with SDH/SONET expertise is becoming ever more difficult
•
RTUs and IEDs are becoming Ethernet-based, migration to IEC 61850
•
Cyber security is crucial for mission-critical networks
SDH/SONET is Being Phased Out…
Power utilities are therefore starting to migrate to future-proof packet networks

3. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 3
When migrating to a packet network, power utilities should consider which PSN technology best fits the operational needs of their mission-critical applications
Competing Packet Technologies for the Operational Network

4. Comparing Carrier Ethernet, MPLS and MPLS-TP

5. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 5
•
Mature technology, widely deployed by carriers
•
Provisioning through management system (not routing protocols)
•
Deterministic and connection-oriented
•
Similar to SDH/SONET in terms of architecture and terminology
•
State-of-the-art security mechanisms available
–
Access authorization (802.1X)
–
Source authentication, integrity and optional encryption (MACSec)
•
Carrier-grade operations mechanisms:
–
Service activation testing (Y.1564)
–
Fault management (Y.1731)
–
Performance monitoring (Y.1731)
–
Automatic protection switching (G.8031, G.8032)
Carrier Ethernet Highlights

6. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 6
•
Mature technology
•
Widely used to carry IP
•
Designed for IP core networks
•
Inherits rich IP control plane
•
Fast re-route for resiliency
•
No inherent security mechanisms
•
Architecturally different than SDH/SONET networks
MPLS Highlights

7. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 7
•
“New kid in town” –initial installations worldwide
•
Adds OAM and protection switching to basic MPLS
–
OAM and APS are based on Carrier Ethernet mechanisms
•
Does not require IP control plane (but can exploit it)
–
Simplifies static setup of semi-permanent services
•
No inherent security mechanisms
•
Architecturally similar to SDH/SONET and Carrier Ethernet
•
Has two equivalent but non-compatible versions (IETF and ITU-T)
MPLS-TP Highlights

8. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 8
1.
Resiliency
2.
Cyber security
3.
Timing
4.
Technological maturity
5.
Future-proofing
6.
Manageability
Teleprotectionrelated considerations:
7.
Low latency (for Teleprotection end-to-end delay should be < 6 msec)
8.
Delay consistency (for Teleprotection should be constant)
9.
Delay asymmetry (for Teleprotection should be < 250 msec)
Criteria for Comparison

9. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 9
•
Carrier Ethernet is the best technology to replace SDH/SONET
•
CE is superior in cyber security
Carrier Ethernet is the Best Technology for SDH/SONET Replacement
SDH
CE
MPLS
MPLS-TP
Conclusion
1. Resiliency
+
+
-
+
•CE at least as good as SDH/SONET
•MPLSuses non-deterministic local FRR
•MPLS-TPis similar to CE
2. Cyber Security
-
+
-
-
•CE is more secure than SDH/SONET
•MPLS and MPLS-TP are not secure
3. TimingFrequency and Time of Day
+
+
-
-
•CE better than SDH/SONET (SDH –only frequency)
•MPLS and MPLS-TP have no standard support for IEEE 1588
4. Technological Maturity
+
+
+
-
•SDH/SONETis mature
•CE & MPLS are mature
•MPLS-TPis still immature
5. Future-Proofing
-
+
+
+
•SDH/SONETis reaching End-of-Life
•CE,MPLS & TPare all future-proof
6. Manageability
+
+
-
+
•CE at least as good as SDH/SONET
•MPLS uses routing protocols
•MPLS-TPis similar to CE

10. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 10
•
Teleprotection is TDM traffic and its transport over a PSN is based on pseudowire implementation
Additional criteria for Teleprotection:
•
CE can replace SDH/SONET for Teleprotection
•
CE is superior on MPLS for Teleprotection transport
CE is the Best Technology for SDH/SONET Replacement for Teleprotection Transport
SDH
CE
MPLS
MPLS-TP
Conclusion
7. Low Latency(< 6 msecend-to-end)
+
+
+
+
•CEis at least as good as SDH/SONET
•MPLS is similar to CE
•MPLS-TP is similar to CE
8. Delay Consistency (constant end-to-end)
+
+
-
+
•CE is practically as good as SDH/SONET
•MPLSsuffers from delay changes
•MPLS-TP is similar to CE
9. Delay Asymmetry(< 250 μsec)
+
+
-
+
•CE is as good as SDH/SONET
•MPLS cannot guarantee symmetry
•MPLS-TP is similar to CE

11. CE vs MPLS in Power Utility Communications 11
Summary
•
Power utilities are replacing their SDH/SONET-based operational networks
•
Carrier Ethernet, MPLS and MPLS-TP are future-proof packet-based technologies
•
Carrier Ethernet is superior to MPLS and MPLS-TP, which are less suitable for critical infrastructure:
–
MPLS and MPLS-TP lack cyber security mechanisms
–
MPLS is not deterministic and not a drop-in SDH/SONET replacement
–
MPLS-TP has two incompatible versions and has not reached maturity
–
Carrier Ethernet is a perfect replacement to
SDH/SONET, even for Teleprotection!

12. www.rad.com