Comparison_IP-MPLS_versus_MPLS-TP for Telecom.pdf

Answers for infrastructure and cities.
Unrestricted © Siemens AG 2013 All rights reserved.
IP/MPLS versus MPLS-TP
A brief comparison
A Smart Grid through Smart Communications
V 1
21 August 2013

2013-08-21
Page 2
• Key Network Requirements 3
• Main Differences 6
• Typical Architecture 10
• Comparison in Detail 13
• Where to implement 22
• Cost comparison 26
Table of content
IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP

2013-08-21
Page 3
Key Requirements for the Utility Wide Area Network
Network Evolution with SDH, MPLS-TP or IP/MPLS
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
• Cheap Layer 2 Label Switches with centralized utility grade NMS versus complex and
expensive Layer 3 IP Routers
• Cost of training, certification, troubleshooting expertise and network care expenses for
transport engineers versus routing engineers
Long-term Product support
• Transport equipment vendors align their roadmaps following the packet centric Telco mass
market (Unified Mobile Backhauling). Maintenance Mode of legacy PDH/SDH
equipment announced or planned by many vendors and force Utilities to react with
packet based network strategy now !
Dominant future Traffic Type
• Amount of legacy TDM traffic versus Next Generation Ethernet and IP packet based
only services (IEC 104, VoIP, CCTV, Physical Access Control, IEC 61850 GOOSE and
Wide Area Profiles for Monitoring, Protection and Control, Enterprise traffic, AMI and
Distribution Automation data aggregation)

2013-08-21
Page 4
Determinism
• Guarantee that mission critical traffic meets hard latency boundaries
• Symmetrical bidirectional forward and return paths mandated by certain use cases
(e.g. Teleprotection: < 10ms (for EHV fast tripping less than 5ms),
Differential Protection: very low jitter,
Power Quality: < 20ms,
SCADA: < 1s)
Resiliency
• High availability of the Network, Transport, and Service Layers (< 50 ms end-to-end
switchover time to backup path)
Security
• Securing versus Separation of the Control Plane
• Virtualization and Separation of Service Classes and complete network layers (VPN)

2013-08-21
Page 5
Traffic Engineering
• Predefined end-to-end working and protection paths with guaranteed bandwidth reservation
for mission critical services (avoidance of congested and overbooked links during traffic
peaks)
Ease of Operations
• OAM features similar to SDH
• Complex Layer 3 Routing or simple Layer 2 Switching
• Comprehensive GUI based NMS for Network Management or CLI based per node practice
Flat Architecture
• Top down packet based clock distribution versus clock loops vulnerability issues and clock
planning complexity
• Distributed decentralized peer-to-peer cross connections versus static HW CC matrix

2013-08-21
Page 6
Table of content
IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP

2013-08-21
Page 7
Main Differences
IP/MPLS („Routers MPLS“)
• IP/MPLS (IP transport over Multi Protocol Label Switching) is standardized by IETF.
First proposals made in 1996
• Is a proven label switching technology in the IP Core, to enable connection oriented
services with very fast packet forwarding speed for IP packet based networks. It is
located between Layer3 (IP) and Layer 2 (Ethernet), often referred to as Layer 2,5
• IP/MPLS devices provide the same legacy TDM interfaces as PDH/SDH
• Migration path from TDM (SDH) to IP/MPLS is a deeper technology cut for utilities as
IP/MPLS is based on complex and dynamic self-organizing IP Routers (L3 devices with
integrated data + control plane). Traffic routing is per default dynamic and operator
independent, but the operator sets the rules & limits. All LSP traffic paths (data plane) are
unidirectional per default.
• IP/MPLS implementations result in significantly higher costs and service efforts
compared to MPLS-TP
• Vendors like Alcatel Lucent, Cisco and Juniper promoting IP/MPLS as target
reference architecture for Telco carriers, ISP and Utilities

2013-08-21
Page 8
Main Differences
MPLS-TP („Optical Packet-based & Transport optimized MPLS“)
• MPLS-TP (Multi Protocol Label Switching –Transport Profile) is a joint standards framework
by IETF & ITU-T (cooperation formed 2008)
• MPLS-TP is a simplified version of IP/MPLS for pure packet-based transport
networks to reuse of the major MPLS constructs and historical SDH paradigms to make it
more suitable for use in the Layer1/2 optical packet-based transport world
• MPLS-TP uses a separated central NMS system to control all traffic paths (control plane),
in a deterministic operator defined style like in SDH networks
• All MPLS-TP LSP traffic paths (data plane) are bidirectional per default
• MPLS-TP integrates a dedicated transport OAM channel to control QoS of all trails, like in
SDH networks
• MPLS-TP devices provide also the same legacy TDM interfaces as PDH/SDH
• Vendors like ECI, ERICSSON and Huawei implement dual switching matrixes (SDH +
MPLS-TP) in their NG SDH systems to provide a smooth migration from SDH to the packet
transport world.

2013-08-21
Page 9
Connection-Oriented
Packet-Switched
(CO-PS)
IP/MPLS
Connection-Oriented
Packet-Switched
(CO-PS)
IP/MPLS
Connection-Oriented
Circuit-Switched
(CO-CS)
SDH
Connection-Oriented
Circuit-Switched
(CO-CS)
SDH
MPLS-TP
The best of SDH and IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP fulfills the requirements for connection oriented packet switching
technology with full transport OAM
MPLS-TP adds packet-based behavior with deterministic
transport to SDH domain
MPLS-TP adds packet-based behavior with deterministic
transport to SDH domain
MPLS-TP adds SDH-like transport mechanisms to IP/MPLS
domain while preserving the main MPLS constructs
MPLS-TP adds SDH-like transport mechanisms to IP/MPLS
domain while preserving the main MPLS constructs
MPLS-TP allows true TDM and packet data convergence by bridging
the gap between the transport and IP routed services worlds
MPLS-TP allows true TDM and packet data convergence by bridging
the gap between the transport and IP routed services worlds
• Optimized for TDM voice
• Sophisticated OAM
• Fast Resiliency
• Scalability
• Strong Traffic Engineering and QoS
• Cost Efficiency
• Optimized for IP data core
• Fast packet forwarding speed
„Route at Edge and Switch in the Core“
• Statistical Multiplexing with VPN services
• Fine granular Bandwidth allocation
(CO
(CO-
-PS)
PS)
MPLS
MPLS-
-TP
TP
Best of
Best of
both worlds
both worlds

2013-08-21
Page 10
Table of content
IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP

2013-08-21
Page 11
P
LSR
CE1 CE2
IP.Net1
VoIP
Office LAN
RTU
IP.Net2
IP PABX
SCADA
VoIP
IP PABX
IP/MPLS
Typical Architecture
CE: Customer Edge IP Router
1. Routing Protocols (e.g. OSPF, IS-IS, BGP) establish reachability to destination IP networks
2. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) establishes label to destination IP network mappings
3. Ingress PE router receives IP packet and TDM frame, performs IP/Layer3 and CES/PW functions
and forwards the packets using Label Push operation (adding of a label)
4. P router switches the packets using Label Swapping
5. Egress PE router removes the labels using Label Pop operation and delivers IP packet and TDM
frame to destination
LSP Label
PW
Label
PE / LER: Provider Edge / Label Edge Router
P / LSR: Provider (Core) / Label Switch Router
PDH/
SDH
PE1
LER PDH/
SDH
PE2
LER

2013-08-21
Page 12
MPLS-TP
P
Client
Node1
MPLS-TP
Typical Architecture
Packet Transport Layer: MPLS-TP LSP (static, bidirectional, working + protect switched path)
Client Layer: Pseudowire (P-t-P encapsulated E1, STM-1/4, Ethernet, Serial, etc.) or IP packets
In-band OAM (data plane supervision, etc.)
Client Signal: E1, STM-1/4, Ethernet, Serial, etc.
Protect LSP
NMS
Control
Plane
LAN1
VoIP
Office LAN
RTU
LAN2
IP PABX
SCADA
VoIP
IP PABX
Client
Node2
LSP Label
PW
Label
Working LSP
PDH/
SDH
MPLS-TP
PE
PDH/
SDH
MPLS-TP
PE

2013-08-21
Page 13
Table of content
IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP

2013-08-21
Page 14
SDH versus MPLS-TP versus IP/MPLS
Comparison in Detail
Comparison
Comparison
Factor
Factor
SDH
SDH MPLS
MPLS-
-TP
TP IP/MPLS
IP/MPLS
CAPEX
CAPEX
Mature cost optimized
equipment
MPLS-TP devices can be
less sophisticated than
full IP/MPLS routers and
therefore cost less
Complex IP/MPLS
routers require more
processing power and
many dynamic routing
protocol stacks and
therefore cost more
OPEX
OPEX
Low
Learning curve is
saturated
MPLS-TP network
operations requires the
same sorts of regular
and standard skills as
any other transport
technology (like SDH)
IP/MPLS operations and
care needs high
expertise and is prone to
User/CLI errors.
Hence cost of the staff
is high and
troubleshooting is
time-consuming

2013-08-21
Page 15
Comparison
Comparison
Factor
Factor
SDH
SDH MPLS
MPLS-
-TP
TP IP/MPLS
IP/MPLS
Network
Network
Availability
Availability
High Same as with SDH
Troubleshooting and
fault isolation is more
complex (as control
plane and data plane
are not sharing
necessarily the same
path). The downtime of
a network in case of a
failure is higher,
resulting in direct and
indirect cost for
operators
Quality of
Quality of
Service
Service
High
Defined per
point-to-point path
High
Defined per
point-to-point path
High with additional
efforts
Defined and
monitored per node
(DiffServ, COS)

2013-08-21
Page 16
Comparison
Comparison
Factor
Factor
SDH
SDH MPLS
MPLS-
-TP
TP IP/MPLS
IP/MPLS
Mission
Mission
Critical
Critical
Awareness
Awareness
Teleprotection
and IEC 101 proven
Teleprotection
and IEC 101 ready
(Latency
per several nodes
<10 ms is feasible)
Teleprotection
and IEC 101 need
additional efforts
(Latency
per several nodes
<10 ms is feasible)
Legacy
Legacy
support
support
TDM
(E1, STM-1/4/16/64 native)
Serial Interfaces
(integrated or via external
PDH-MUX)
TDM
(E1, STM-1/4 using CES
or native in hybrid nodes)
Serial Interfaces
PDH-MUX)
TDM
(E1, STM-1/4 using CES)
Serial Interfaces
PDH-MUX)

2013-08-21
Page 17
Comparison
Comparison
Factor
Factor
SDH
SDH MPLS
MPLS-
-TP
TP IP/MPLS
IP/MPLS
Traffic Type
Traffic Type
Optimized for TDM
voice traffic
Ethernet and IP Packet
data must use Ethernet
over SDH (EoS)
Optimized for Ethernet
and IP traffic
TDM Traffic can use
Circuit Emulation or
native TDM transport
(in hybrid nodes)
or VoIP PABX
Optimized for Ethernet
and IP traffic
TDM Traffic must use
Circuit Emulation
or VoIP PABX
Communication
Communication
Model
Model
Connection-Oriented
Circuit-Switched
(CO-CS)
Connection-Oriented
Packet-Switched
(CO-PS)
Connection-Oriented
Packet-Switched
(CO-PS)
OSI Layers
OSI Layers
Layer 1 / 2
Layer 2 / 2.5
(most implementations
on Layer 2 NE‘s)
Layer 2.5
(most implementations
on Layer 3 NE‘s)

2013-08-21
Page 18
Comparison
Comparison
Factor
Factor
SDH
SDH MPLS
MPLS-
-TP
TP IP/MPLS
IP/MPLS
WAN
WAN
Technology
Technology
• STM-1/4/16/64
• Integrated / external
boosters for long
links is off-the-shelf
technology
• Optical 1 GigEth or
10 GigEth in most
implementations
(some vendors
implement also
MPLS-TP over SDH)
• Integrated boosters
only for SDH available /
external boosters or
separate DWDM plane
for long links needed
• Optical 1 GigEth or
10 GigEth in most
implementations
(< 70km standard
reach)
• Separate DWDM plane
for long links needed
Separation
Separation
of Data and
of Data and
Control Plane
Control Plane
• Data plane in each
node
• Control Plane in
central NMS
• Data plane in each
node
• Control Plane in
central NMS
• Integrated distributed
Control + Data Plane
in each node

2013-08-21 A. Boess
Page 21
Comparison
Comparison
Factor
Factor
SDH
SDH MPLS
MPLS-
-TP
TP IP/MPLS
IP/MPLS
OAM features
OAM features
SDH OAM header
enabling a rich set of
OAM features
MPLS-TP adds a
dedicated, In-band OAM
Generic Associated
Channel (G-ACh)
enabling a rich set of
OAM features (BFD,
AIS, CC, CV, LSP Ping,
LSP Traceroute, loss and
delay measurement, LDI
traversing data-plane
path)
Limited OAM features
(IP-based BFD, LSP
Ping, LSP Traceroute,
Trace Tree today)
Vendor
Vendor
Interoperability
Interoperability
of Data Plane
of Data Plane
Established Emerging Established

2013-08-21
Page 22
Table of content
IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP

2013-08-21
Page 23
Where to implement IP/MPLS or MPLS-TP
The Telco View
Ethernet MPLS-TP IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP IP/MPLS
IP/MPLS
Layer3 Network
Layer2 Network
IP/MPLS

2013-08-21
Page 24
Where to implement MPLS-TP
The Utility View
Enterprise
Data
VoIP CCTV
IEC 104
RTU
Legacy
Teleprotection
IEC 101
RTU
IEC 61850
IED
PE
MPLS-TP
Ring Aggregation
MPLS-TP
Linear Aggregation
1GigEth
CE
P
PE
PE
CE
CE
1GigEth
P
CE
CE
PE
P
PE P
PDH/SDH
PDH/SDH
Access/Aggregation Network
Transmission Substations
End-to-End Applications
Integrated Operation, Administration and Maintenance
Core Network
Transmission Substations
PE P
P PE
PE
PE
10GigEth
Rings
CE
CE
IEC 101
RTU
AMI Data
Aggregation
3rd party NE
Alarms
Remote
Access
Primary Control Center
IP PABX
N x 1GigEth
CE
SCADA
NMS MDM
NMS
Secondary Control Center
IP PABX
N x 1GigEth
CE
SCADA
NMS MDM
NMS

EANTC Network Topology

2013-08-21
Page 26
Table of content
IP/MPLS
MPLS-TP

2013-08-21
Page 27
Cost Comparison MPLS-TP versus IP/MPLS
Let’s talk about Money
Let’s talk about Money
• Network element cost
• Simple NE versus sophisticated one
• Number of people required to run the network
• Required expertise and training
• Troubleshooting time
• Centralized NMS versus distributed control plane
• CLI versus GUI based NMS
CAPEX
CAPEX
OPEX
OPEX
Control
Control

2013-08-21
Page 28
Total Cost Comparison MPLS-TP versus IP/MPLS
Pure Packet Reference Network
• Traffic type: Pure Packet Services (Mix of FE, 1GE and 10GE)
• MPLS-TP Solution: Native Packet Transport Solution
• IP/MPLS Solution: IP/MPLS Switch/Router product line
Source: ACG Research , TCO Comparison for ECI Telecom’s
MPLS-TP Based Native Packet Transport Solution for a Mobile
Backhaul Network, 2012

2013-08-21
Page 29
Total Cost Comparison MPLS-TP versus IP/MPLS
Five Year Cumulative TCO Analysis
55% lower Total Cost of Ownership
55% lower Total Cost of Ownership
Five-Year Cumulative TCO Comparison of MPLS-TP
with IP/MPLS Solution for Pure Packet Traffic
Five-Year Cumulative TCO Comparison of MPLS-TP
with IP/MPLS Solution for Pure Packet Traffic
Source: ACG Research , TCO Comparison for ECI Telecom’s MPLS-TP Based
Native Packet Transport Solution for a Mobile Backhaul Network, 2012
MPLS-TP IP/MPLS
+55%

2013-08-21
Page 34
Conclusion
IP/MPLS is suitable for:
• IP based core and usecases where any-to-any IP/Layer3 connectivity is mandatory required
MPLS-TP is suitable for:
• Cost efficient Network Elements specially for access and aggregation networks
• Where latency and resiliency mission critical Teleprotection services are present
• Hybrid MPLS-TP + SDH Nodes ensure even Zero Risk Utility Approach
• SDH like look & feel (central powerful NMS, strict QoS policy, deterministic traffic flows)
Conclusion:
• MPLS-TP is Simple to operate and manage
• MPLS-TP is Scalable for large networks
• MPLS-TP has Lower NE TCO and complexity
• MPLS-TP is Secure and deterministic
MPLS-TP = Transport-Optimized MPLS
Defines the feature list that is most relevant for utility grade transport networks
MPLS-TP benefits without the complications and cost of running Layer 3 IP-Routers
MPLS-TP = Transport-Optimized MPLS
Defines the feature list that is most relevant for utility grade transport networks
MPLS-TP benefits without the complications and cost of running Layer 3 IP-Routers

Comparison_IP-MPLS_versus_MPLS-TP for Telecom.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Comparison_IP-MPLS_versus_MPLS-TP for Telecom.pdf

Recently uploaded

Comparison_IP-MPLS_versus_MPLS-TP for Telecom.pdf