The MPLS next generation of broadband communications?

MPLS seems to be the next generation of communications. There are numerous applications that can benefit from this new technology to be able to prioritize data packets by assigning labels to them. Of course, it is still in "early days".

ATM MPLS is what should have been. All the traffic control of ATM, without the limitations of fixed dimensions of the cells. In general, when you want to manage services with different QoS, MPLS is the right answer for pipe broadband, ATM is the right answer for the tubes of low bandwidth (which is why it is used for DSL).

Many products have the label MPLS, but beware - there are several partial implementations (Cisco included) MPLS specifications, many of which do not give the full range of QoS and support for carrying out various services at the same time. For multi-service MPLS networks is what I would be basing networks of today - but please check the small print to ensure that they really do what you want.

I would say that MPLS is the 'Now' (not Next) generation technology backbone. In Europe and AsiaPac is already the technology of choice for most of the new implementations WAN .... and a number of major global Telco service offerings, not to mention the main objective of suppliers.

My only defense is to not forget to compare the business case for MPLS and competing legacy technologies when considering a change. Often service providers keep customers in MPLS because it is fashionable and the margins are better for them because it can group multiple services (data and advanced VoIP network monitoring tools, etc.). MPLS is 'cost' for a customer will depend on:

(A) the requirements of existing and future width of banda;

(B) the need to flex the bandwidth on demand;

(C) the geographic spread of the WAN (distance from the central and regulatory restrictions).

There have been cases where companies were in the middle of the rollout of a MPLS WAN .... only to realize they're going to spend more (not less) of a technology that will really benefit. In addition, some companies have abandoned MPLS when they realized that they could double the existing ATM banda cheaper and faster in some places .... Rather than deploy MPLS.

Overall, though, with (a) the updating of the network infrastructure is now more integrated into financial statements and (b) the awareness that things like VOIP and convergence of legacy and current data networks are no longer an act of faith, and (c) removal of awards for MPLS - technology is really becoming the default for now Wide Area Networks.

British Telecom as well as all the other UK, European and U.S. Telcos comes to my mind, all deploy MPLS as the technology backbone carrier. It 's very likely that if you buy ATMs in some locations today will be encapsulated in MPLS anyway!

Every major telco in the U.S. is pushing MPLS. In fact, Sprint is moving away from the Frame Relay service to the end of the year and put all their MPLS network.

Just remember that you must have MPLS in each site, in order to fully exploit the technology. However, the United States, every telco ATT, Sprint, Verizon, GX able to offer the service globally.

Just a side note "Aw Ha moment" .... cost savings touted, however, depends on the network topology as well as Telco in use.

For example

Sprint: switching from a traditional frame relay network to a MPLS network will save you money. If you have a full mesh Frame Relay network savings is greater. Why? Because the class with Sprint service is free. So you go from the loop + + + PVC door to door cycle.

Verizon Business: Verizon offers CAR (Commmitted access speed) with their offer MPLS (Private IP or PIP). So you do not PVC, but now ahve to pay for CAS depending on what you want can be the same or more.

All offers MPLS so that customers who previously did not have a full mesh network to have the advantages of an hour. This plays well in most disaster recovery plans for clients too.

Now .... approaching a devil's advocate for the hype of MPLS.

First, it provides no MPLS CoS (Class of Service) QoS ATM "means" to ensure clarity of the true subject. The problem I have seen and dealt with the surrounding MPLS is its implementation. Its touted as "cheap" - cost or less (as you would like this word) solution and is at an ATM (equipment wise) - but also a different service.

Now, for MPLS to be effective, the entire route from point A to point B must be enabled MPLS. So given a voice in locations in England and the position B in Chicago to say, this entire route from both positions, (emphasis on should) be MPLS enabled. Or, the signs of the packages are useless.

Here's an example of packet flow:

VoIP calls from London -> A Provider (MPLS)

ISP A -> Upstream -> Upstream Provider (No MPLS)

Upstream provider -> Back to Location A (No MPLS)

Since the upstream providers has MPLS enabled, all you "think" you did right was worthless. Those 6509 and best MPLS is configured, did not affect the speed of traffic, you saved zero dollars.

Static routing? ..... MPLS is highly dependent on static routes, fly routes, tracks down. Fact of life. MPLS is brutally dumb and takes an insane amount of configuration engineers for failover scenarios.

QoS? ..... The same is true, you can color packets a rainbow of colors. If you or anyone in the upstream path strips the colors, its a wasted effort. Providers, especially providers of banda - will not make mention of how MPLS is not all that its cracked up to be. They will pitch a product. "Width banda fastest on the planet." But unless the positions are strictly on the provider's network. There is no guarantee of another provider who will honor all the colors of the packets (QoS / CoS) MPLS and ATM. Outside of that ...... MPLS is based on IP and succeptible to all types of attacks. At least with ATM attack vectors are slightly more difficult.

Now that you are fully enlightened .... you can make the decision for MPLS (or not) even easier by using a neutral adviser. My number 1 recommendation is to make use of free services to DS3-Bandwidth.com ....