User:Cwacker1/MPLS-Experts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"MPLS-Experts" redirects here. For other uses, see MPLS-Experts (disambiguation).
MPLS-Experts
Type Private Company
Founded 2001
Headquarters Newton, Massachusetts, USA
Key people President: Steve Garson
Industry Telecommunications Consulting
Website www.MPLS-Experts.com

MPLS-Experts is a privately owned telecommunications consulting company based in Newton, Massachusetts. MPLS-Experts is a division of BCC Telecom, LLC. Founded in 2001, BCC-Telecom has consulted in a variety of technology related areas.[1] MPLS-Experts focuses on the difference that MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching)[2] can offer a company over VPNs or Frame Relay. MPLS-Experts works primarily with companies with multiple office locations because of the increased difficulty of data communication across greater distances.

Contents

[edit] Company History

BCC (Better Cost Control) Telecom, LLC was established in 2001 as a cost reduction consulting firm. After some time, President Steve Garson noticed that with the growth of the global economy, obtaining quality WAN connectivity to India, Sri Lanka, China, Korea and other Asian countries was a challenge. They found that their BCC clients were either using unsatisfactory VPN over Internet or paying more than necessary for Frame Relay circuits that did not provide the performance they required. This led to their focus on serving this important market. MPLS-Experts was established as a separate division to assist companies in obtaining solutions for the proper network technologies for their data communications needs by obtaining quotes from multiple vendors.

[edit] What is MPLS?

Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a standardized protocol and comprehensive unifying networking architecture. MPLS is a technology that combines the benefits of layer 3 routing and layer 2 switching to enable high performance IP networks. It provides the same degree of privacy and security as a Frame Relay or ATM transport service without having the same scaling problems and with a lower cost structure. To both simplify and increase the efficiency of core transport, the MPLS protocol enables data to be transmitted efficiently across a network infrastructure utilizing a technology known as “Label Switching.”

MPLS enables the creation of secure, reliable VPNs which provide Class of Service/Quality of Service support. The result is a single integrated IP network which supports quality of service, which is the key advantage in an application rich environment. This means you can implement VoIP and prioritize your applications ahead of the best-effort non-critical data.[3]

For more information see MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching)

[edit] How MPLS Works

As your corporate data enters the carrier network, a 20 bit header called a label is appended to each packet. Labels can be used to convey several types of information about a packet, but probably the most frequent use of a label is to uniquely identify the Virtual Private Network in a shared infrastructure and keep it private. Used in this fashion, a label uniquely identifies a packet as belonging to a specific IP VPN. Upon reaching its destination, the label is removed, thereby returning the data packet to its original state. The process is seamless and unnoticeable to end-users. One can think of MPLS in this context as a “special delivery courier service” for the WAN.

The “label” thus replaces traditional IP packet forwarding, where complicated address matching is performed at each hop in the network. The label describes how the packet should be handled within the network and thus assigns the packet to a Forwarding equivalence class (FEC). As a packet traverses the network the intermediate nodes simply swap labels and forwards the packet based on the FEC, without ever examining the contents of the packet. Thus all packets which belong to the same FEC get treated in the same way and quickly are sped along their way. Label-swapping is considered to be more like Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switching in its speed and simplicity. Packets are forwarded along a “Label Switched Path (LSP)”, where each “Label Switch Router (LSR)” makes forwarding decisions based solely on the contents of the label. At each hop, the LSR strips off the existing label and applies a new label that tells the next hop LSR how to forward the packet. Labels are distributed between LERs and LSRs using the “Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)". Label Switch Routers in an MPLS network regularly exchange label and reachability information with each other using standardized procedures in order to build a complete picture of the network they can then use to forward packets. Label Switch Paths (LSPs) are established by the network operator for a variety of purposes, such as to create network-based IP Virtual Private Networks or to route traffic along specified paths through the network. In many respects, LSPs are no different than PVCs in ATM or Frame Relay networks, except that they are not dependent on a particular Layer 2 technology.[4]

For more information see MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching)

[edit] Comparison of MPLS versus VPN over IP

MPLS cannot be compared to IP as a separate entity because it works in conjunction with IP and IP's IGP routing protocols. MPLS gives IP networks simple traffic engineering, the ability to transport Layer 3 (IP) VPNs with overlapping address spaces, and support for Layer 2 pseudowires (with Any Transport Over MPLS, or ATOM - see Martini draft). Routers with programmable CPUs and without TCAM/CAM or another method for fast lookups may also see a limited increase in the performance.

MPLS relies on IGP routing protocols to construct its label forwarding table, and the scope of any IGP is usually restricted to a single carrier for stability and policy reasons. As there is still no standard for carrier-carrier MPLS it is not possible to have the same MPLS service (Layer2 or Layer3 VPN) covering more than one operator.

[edit] MPLS local protection

Main article: MPLS local protection

In the event of a network element failure when recovery mechanisms are employed at the IP layer, restoration may take several seconds which is unacceptable for real-time applications (such as VoIP)[5] [6][7]. In contrast, MPLS local protection meets the requirements of real-time applications with recovery times comparable to those of SONET rings (up to 50ms).[5][7][8]

[edit] Comparison of MPLS versus ATM

While the underlying protocols and technologies are different, both MPLS and ATM provide a connection-oriented service for transporting data across computer networks. In both technologies connections are signaled between endpoints, connection state is maintained at each node in the path and encapsulation techniques are used to carry data across the connection. Excluding differences in the signaling protocols (RSVP/LDP for MPLS and PNNI for ATM) there still remain significant differences in the behavior of the technologies.

The most significant difference is in the transport and encapsulation methods. MPLS is able to work with variable length packets while ATM transports fixed-length (53 byte) cells. Packets must be segmented, transported and re-assembled over an ATM network using an adaption layer, which adds significant complexity and overhead to the data stream. MPLS, on the other hand, simply adds a label to the head of each packet and transmits it on the network.

Differences exist, as well, in the nature of the connections. An MPLS connection (LSP) is uni-directional - allowing data to flow in only one direction between two endpoints. Establishing two-way communications between endpoints requires a pair of LSPs to be established. Because 2 LSPs are required for connectivity, data flowing in the forward direction may use a different path from data flowing in the reverse direction. ATM point-to-point connections (Virtual Circuits), on the other hand, are bi-directional, allowing data to flow in both directions over the same path (bi-directional are only svc ATM connections; pvc ATM connections are uni-directional).

Both ATM and MPLS support tunnelling of connections inside connections. MPLS uses label stacking to accomplish this while ATM uses Virtual Paths. MPLS can stack multiple labels to form tunnels within tunnels. The ATM Virtual Path Indicator (VPI) and Virtual Circuit Indicator (VCI) are both carried together in the cell header, limiting ATM to a single level of tunnelling.

The biggest single advantage that MPLS has over ATM is that it was designed from the start to be complementary to IP. Modern routers are able to support both MPLS and IP natively across a common interface allowing network operators great flexibility in network design and operation. ATM's incompatibilities with IP require complex adaptation making it largely unsuitable in today's predominantly IP networks.[9]

[edit] Business Model

MPLS-Experts manages the entire selection and implementation process to provide an end-to-end solution. MPLS-Experts is partnered with multiple MPLS service providers which enables them to receive bids from multiple vendors. With several IT (Information technology) and network Consultants they can build a customized solution for companies today and establish an upgrade path for tomorrow. Their transaction model starts when a client asks for a quote and ends when a solution is in place. MPLS-Experts project managers handle the entire process from start to finish.

[edit] Cases

Hexagon Metrology[10]

[edit] Service Providers

[edit] References

  1. ^ Services Better Cost Control LLC, 2007
  2. ^ MPLS Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprotocol_Label_Switching, 2003
  3. ^ What is MPLS? MPLS-Experts, June 2007
  4. ^ How MPLS works. MPLS-Experts, June 2007
  5. ^ a b Aslam et al. (2005-02-02). "NPP: A Facility Based Computation Framework for Restoration Routing Using Aggregate Link Usage Information". QoS-IP 2005 : quality of service in multiservice IP network. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
  6. ^ Raza et al.. "Online routing of bandwidth guaranteed paths with local restoration using optimized aggregate usage information". IEEE-ICC 2005. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
  7. ^ a b Li Li et al.. "Routing bandwidth guaranteed paths with local restoration in label switched networks". 
  8. ^ Kodialam et al.. "Dynamic Routing of Locally Restorable Bandwidth Guaranteed Tunnels using Aggregated Link Usage Information". IEEE Infocom. pp. 376–385. 2001. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
  9. ^ [1] Marguerite Reardon, http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=22340, 2002
  10. ^ Hexagon Metrology Case. Better Cost Control LLC, 2003

[edit] External Links