Read more: http://mpls-tp.

com/difference-between-mpls-mpls-tp/#ixzz30f7WrP6I
Follow us: @MPLS_TP on Twitter


The basic difference between the two is that MPLS must have a control plane protocol, but in case of
MPLS-TP the control plane protocol is not a must. This creates a big advantage in the fast convergence.
MPLS is uni-directional whereas MPLS-TP is bi-directional
Switching time and recovery in MPLS-TP must be within 50ms in both 1+1 and 1:1 protection schemes
(this is achieved using FDD/CV with 3.3ms). But in MPLS this is all related to IGP


RFC 5654 is all about requirements of MPLS-TP. But what is the difference between MPLS and MPLS-TP
and how operators can use MPLS-TP in lieu of legacy SDH/SONET networks.
1. MPLS requires a control plane protocol and but in case of MPLS-TP no control plane protocol is
required. The reason for selecting no control plane protocol is only for the fast convergence and
removing any kind of dependencies.
2. MPLS is uni directional where as MPLS-TP is bi-directional.
3. MPLS is having inband OAM where as in MPLS-TP out of band OAM is available.
4. No separation of control and data plane where as in MPLS-TP MUST support the logical separation of
the control and management planes from the data plane
5. MPLS-TP 1+1 and 1:1 protection in a ring MUST support switching ime within 50 ms from the moment
of fault detection in a network with a 16-node ring with less than 1200 km of fiber but in MPLS all
dependent of IGP.


use the Internet Protocol (IP), which significantly reduces cost and complexity.
A decade ago, Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) emerged as another unifying technology.
Forwarding most packets at Layer 2, MPLS allowed service providers to build large-scale IP-
based networks that supported traffic engineering, connection-oriented packet transport
and virtual private networks (VPNs), features that were hard or impossible to implement with
native IP. The widespread deployment of MPLS and Carrier Ethernetcaused transmission price-
per-bit to drop by orders of magnitude and put frame relay andasynchronous transfer
mode (ATM) on the endangered technologies list.
Encouraged by the rapid uptake and enormous success of MPLS in the IP world, vendors tried
to apply the same principles to transport and optical networksoptical networks. They tried to
unify Synchronous Digital Hierarchy(SDH), optical transport network (OTN), anddense wave
division multiplexing (DWDM), and developed Generic MPLS (GMPLS), which so far has been a
failure. The mentality of transport network operators is obviously incompatible with the
connectionless unpredictable self-adjusting world of IP.
Standards groups to bring Layer 2 features to MPLS-TP
In 2006, the International Telecommunication Union standardization sector (ITU-T) decided to
merge the same architectural principles used in transport network technologies like SDH,
SONET and OTN with MPLS. The ITU tried to recycle GMPLS into its own MPLS-like technology
called Transport-MPLS (T-MPLS).
Fortunately, the ITU's development efforts were quickly stopped, and the development ofMPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) continues as a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)/ITU
effort.
The first result of the joint effort had a list of 115 requirements that identified MPLS-TP-specific
requirements in six major areas. Some of these requirements specify the mandatory or
recommended use of existing MPLS technologies or components, but many require new
functionality and significant reworking of existing MPLS control and management protocols(see
below).
Even though MPLS-TP requires significant deviation from the traditional MPLS model and a lot
of standardization work, the first requests for comments (RFCs) have just started to emerge.
The expected payoffs, which include unified technology, reduced transport network complexity
and associated cost reductions, have clearly excited service providers. If successful, MPLS-TP
will give service providers unified network management and provisioning, and single packet
switching technology they will be able to use across numerous transport networks, thus
reducing the total cost of ownership.
Breaking down the differences between MPLS and MPLS-TP
When it comes to the major differences between MPLS and MPLS-TP, here's what you need to
know.
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). MPLS is based on the traditional IP routing
paradigm -- traffic from A to B can flow over different paths than traffic from B to A. But
transport networks commonly use bidirectional circuits, and MPLS-TP also mandates the
support of bidirectional LSPs (a path through an MPLS network). In addition, MPLS-TP must
support point-to-multipoint paths.
Management plane LSP setup. Paths across MPLS networks are set up with control-plane
protocols (IP routing protocols or Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE). MPLS-TP could use the same path setup mechanisms as MPLS
(control plane-based LSP setup) or the traditional transport network approach where the
paths are configured from the central network management system (management plane
LSP setup).
MORE MPLS AND MPLS-TP RESOURCES
Ask our Expert: How will MPLS-TP interact with MPLS in the future?

Telecom Insights guide: Metro network trends include focus onMPLS-TP

Speaking of differences, how isMPLS different from plain old IP?
Control plane is not mandatory. Going a step farther, MPLS-TP nodes should be able to
work with no control plane, with paths across the network computed solely by the network
management system and downloaded into the network elements.
Out-of-band management. MPLS nodes usually use in-band management or at least in-
band exchange of control-plane messages. MPLS-TP network elements have to support out-
of-band management over a dedicated management network (similar to the way some
transport networks are managed today).
Total separation of management/control and data plane. Data forwarding within an MPLS-
TP network element must continue even if its management or control plane fails. High-end
routers provide similar functionality with non-stop forwarding, but this kind of functionality
was never mandatory in traditional MPLS.
No IP in the forwarding plane. MPLS nodes usually run IP on all interfaces because they
have to support the in-band exchange of control-plane messages. MPLS-TP network
elements must be able to run without IP in the forwarding plane.
Explicit support of ring topologies. Many transport networks use ring topologies to reduce
complexity. MPLS-TP thus includes mandatory support for numerous ring-specific
mechanisms.