Power utilities are transitioning from outdated SDH/SONET networks to future-proof packet technologies, primarily Carrier Ethernet (CE), which is deemed superior for mission-critical applications due to its robust cyber security and determinism. In contrast, MPLS and MPLS-TP are less suitable as they lack necessary security mechanisms and architectural consistency. The document emphasizes that CE is the best replacement for SDH/SONET, particularly for teleprotection transport.

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