Assessing IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP for Transport Networks

Document type:
Author:
Date:
Document No.:

White Paper
Johan de Bilde
April, 2013
XA-W059-E-1

Abstract
When selecting technology for next generation Transport Networks, MPLS is often referred to
as the solution. But which MPLS is better suited for this application? Will IP/MPLS do the job,
and is it fit for transport? Or is MPLS-TP (Transport Profile) a better fit for transport networks, as
its name suggests? What are the commonalities of both? Where do they differ? How do they
cooperate?
This paper is not a tutorial on IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP, and it is assumed that the reader has some
familiarity with the basic technology. This paper intends to describe and position both IP/MPLS
and MPLS-TP for their specific use in Transport Networks for Railway Operators and Utility
Providers, and acts as a guide to help make sound decisions.
In the paragraphs below, it becomes clear that when IP/MPLS is the best choice for use in Core
Networks, it is not the best option for Transport Networks. Here, MPLS-TP is clearly the better
choice:
MPLS-TP adds mandatory OAM functionalities required in Transport Networks, these
functionalities are not available in IP/MPLS.
Superfluous functionalities from IP/MPLS that use up a lot of CPU power, are not available in
MPLS-TP, yielding a far better performance.
An MPLS-TP network can be run by operators having SDH experience. There is no need to
hire expensive Layer 2 (Ethernet) or Layer 3 (IP routing) specialists.
The deterministic behavior of the data paths in MPLS-TP, with symmetrical and congruent
data paths in both directions, is essential for use in Transport Networks, and this is quite
difficult to achieve with IP/MPLS.
In short, MPLS-TP allows to run Transport Networks easier, with higher quality data streams,
requiring less operational personnel that needs less training and hence provides an overall
far more cost effective solution.
In the text below, color markings are used to indicate the functional fit to Transport Networks:
Good fit, standard available, easy to do
Can be made to fit, but requires considerable effort
Does not fit, cannot be done or very difficult

Page 2 of 15

White Paper XA-W059-E-1

OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Transport Networks Characteristics

Telecommunication Networks of Railway Operators or Utility Providers, have a similar
architecture to that of Telecom Operators: they consist of a Core Network, a Metro or Transport
Network, and an Access Network.

Network Architecture

The Core or Backbone network, is the central part of a telecommunication network. Its a high
capacity network that provides communication paths between applications and different subnetworks. Core networks usually have a mesh topology and provide any-to-any connectivity.
Devices in the Core are typically switches and routers, 10s to 100s of them. These Core devices
must be able to handle very high volumes of data at very high speeds from any source to any
destination. In the early days, all traffic was routed, but IP routing became a limiting factor as
networks grew and speeds increased. Routing was mainly done in software, more processing
power was needed to process more IP packets faster, and IP Routing hit its speed limitations.
Furthermore, IP routing is by definition connection-less, and has unpredictable behavior in large
networks with high data volumes.
That is why IP/MPLS (Internet Protocol / Multiprotocol Label Switching) was introduced in
addition to IP Routing: Incoming packets are classified, labeled and forwarded instead of routed.
This forwarding can be performed in hardware and is hence much faster than routing. The
introduction of IP/MPLS in the network made the network connection-oriented and allowed
Traffic Engineering (TE). Today, IP/MPLS is a widely used technology in Core Networks.
The Metro / Transport part of the network is quite different, and has some very specific
requirements. It has a large geographical footprint with a high number of nodes, typically 100s
to 1000s of them. Network topologies found in a Transport Network include mesh, ring, star,
tree and daisy-chain, or any combination of these. Data flows in a Transport Network are quite
different from those in the core network. Where Core Networks require flexible any-to-any

XA-W059-E-1
OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Page 3 of 15

connectivity, traffic flows in Transport networks are much simpler and more static, have long
times to live (months-years), and must be predictable and very reliable. Railway Operators and
Utility Companies deploy various applications that impose specific requirements. Connecting
CCTVs, Access Control Systems, Ticket Vending Machines, Management Systems, SCADA,
(Railway) Signaling Systems, (Energy) Remote Telemetry Equipment, Backhauling of Mobile
Traffic, Voice Servers, Connecting Safety and Security Installations, Safe Corporate Intranet
Access, Public Information Systems, etc demand a Transport Network with very specific
characteristics. For Railways, Signaling Systems are critical to keep the trains running safely. For
Utilities, the time critical applications are Teleprotection and Differential Delay. The Railways
and Utilities equipment must have a lifespan between 10-20 years and require overall stability,
absolute latency control and ease-of-use. Solutions must provide SDH-like service and
operability, something these operators are well used to.
Transport Networks have the following characteristics:
Predictable bandwidth
Symmetrical and congruent paths for both directions
Predictable and symmetrical delay and jitter
Statically provisioned paths
Long-lived connections
Emphasis on manageability and deterministic behavior
Fast restoration in case of failure (less than 50ms)
Powerful Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM), in-band OAM
End-to-End QoS
Easy to manage by the Transport operations department
Security
In the following paragraphs, we will describe the main functionalities of IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP,
and map these to the requirements of Transport Networks.

IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP Backgrounder

As indicated earlier, IP/MPLS was developed to improve performance of IP routed networks,
and to introduce Connection Oriented communications. It operates on 3 planes:
Data plane: this is the plane that actually carries the forwarded payload. In this plane, the
actual labeled packets are forwarded to their destination. It should be noted that IP packets
can also be routed in the MPLS Data plane. The Label Switched Paths (LSP) and Pseudowires
(PW) are situated in this Data plane.

Page 4 of 15

White Paper XA-W059-E-1

OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

 Control plane: this is the plane that is responsible for collecting and propagating the
information that will be used later to forward incoming packets. Routing Protocols (IGP, BGP)
and Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) are parts of the Control plane. The Forwarding
Equivalent Classes (FEC) that identify the various LSPs are managed here. The control plane
decides which packets belong to which FEC.
Management plane: this is the plane used to manage the network, and includes amongst
others Fault and Performance management, Configuration management and Administration.
It consists of management functions in the Network Elements (counters, timers, OAM
channels) and an external management system to present this information to the operator
of the network.

MPLS Planes

For IP/MPLS, the Data Plane and the Control Plane are the most important planes for operating
the network. For MPLS-TP, the Data Plane and the Management Plane are the essential planes.
In the next paragraphs we will highlight the differences per plane, and the relevance for use in
Transport Networks.

XA-W059-E-1
OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Page 5 of 15

3.1

Data Plane
IP/MPLS allows both the forwarding (or routing) of IP Packets and the forwarding of Labeled
MPLS Packets. As indicated above, IP routing is neither predictable nor symmetrical, and has no
predictable delay and jitter, so it is not suited for Transport Networks and hence should not be
used in Transport Networks. That is why MPLS-TP only uses the forwarding of labeled MPLS
packets.

3.1.1

Label Swith Paths and Pseudowires

IP/MPLS uses Label Switch Paths (LSP) and/or Pseudowires end-to-end (PWE3) to transport data
through the network. IP traffic is forwarded directly into a LSP, and for transporting legacy data
(E1/T1, ATM, FR, Ethernet VLANs, ), pseudowires end-to-end PWE3 are used. In IP/MPLS,
paths are uni-directional, and typically have different routes in the forward and reverse
directions. This is an important issue, as traffic in Transport networks should flow on congruent
paths in both direction. Setting-up congruent paths in IP/MPLS can be done, but must be done
by hand, and is a tedious job.
The transport of data in MPLS-TP networks is slightly different but 100% compatible with
IP/MPLS. In MPLS-TP, LSPs are bidirectional by definition, so traffic flows in both directions are
congruent. Furthermore, all traffic is transported in pseudowires (PWE3), and the PWs
themselves run in a LSP. The reason to use PW for all traffic, is that this way user traffic remains
unchanged: original source/destination MAC addresses remain intact all the way. In fact, to the
user it seems as if he has his own dedicated Leased Line for his service. This is exactly what a
Transport Network should do.

Pseudowires in a LSP

3.1.2

Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) aspects

OAM in general refers to the framework of processes, activities, tools and standards used for
operating, administering, managing and maintaining a telecom network. In order to guarantee
the quality of the service, Fault Management (FM) and Performance Monitoring (PM) are key
components of any OAM solution.
For Ethernet based networks, a number of standards are relevant in this respect:

Page 6 of 15

White Paper XA-W059-E-1

OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

ITU-T Y.1731: defines OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based networks. For
Fault Management, the standard defines continuity checks, loopbacks, link trace and
alarm suppression for effective fault detection, verification, isolation and notification. For
Performance Monitoring, it defines measurements such as Frame Loss Ratio, Frame Delay
and Frame Delay variation.
IEEE 802.1ag: Connectivity Fault Management (CFM), largely identical to ITU-T Y.1731 but
without Performance Monitoring.
IEEE 802.3ah: defines Link Level Monitoring in Ethernet First Mile (EFM) for Service
Assurance Detection on the native Ethernet service.
For IP/MPLS, specific OAM functions are:
LSP Ping/Traceroute: Like the traditional IP Ping, LSP Ping is based on echo request and
echo reply on either side of the LSP. The LERs of a LSP issue Ping messages, and expect a
reply. When the LSP is broken, no echo is generated and an error condition is flagged.
LSP Traceroute can then be used to find the location of the failure.
VCCV: Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification allows to use LSP Ping to test
the Pseudowire (PW) section of the connection.
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection is, similar to LSP Ping, a mechanism for detecting
MPLS data plane failures, but unlike LSP Ping, is not able to verify LSP data plane against
the control plane (*). Processing of BFD control packets is relatively faster than the
processing of LSP Ping messages. BFD allows faster data plane fault detection and makes
it possible to provide this detection on a greater number of LSPs.
(*) Note: this verification of the LSP data plane against the control plane is not required in
MPLS-TP, since the data plane is separated from the control plane. So the better
performance of BFD makes it the preferred OAM function for MPLS-TP.
From a Transport Network point of view, LSP Ping/Traceroute and VCCV have a few drawbacks.
First, they are on-demand processes, so it is not a continuous dataflow that is monitored as we
would expect for Transport Networks. Second, the specific OAM packets do not follow the
actual data stream, and hence can have a different timing than the actual data. Furthermore,
IP/MPLS does not support Performance Management, and lacks some Fault Management
functions (eg. Loopback, lock mechanism). As a result, IP/MPLS OAM functionalities are not
sufficient to guarantee fast detection and recovery of less than 50 ms, and hence are not suited
for Transport Networks.
To overcome these problems, MPLS-TP supports additional OAM mechanisms. The most
relevant addition is the in-band OAM capability: the OAM packets (used by BFD or Y.1731)
follow the same path as the data flows, in a dedicated channel, called Generic Associated
Channel (G-Ach). G-Ach is used in both Pseudowires (PW) and Label Switch Paths (LSP). In the
case of LSP, a special label called Generic Alert Label (GAL) is used to flag the G-Ach within the
LSP. In the case of PW, this Generic Alert Label is not used. The Y.1731 OAM packets are
transported transparently through the PW, so that we can assure end-to-end OAM.

XA-W059-E-1
OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Page 7 of 15

+
Generic Associated Channel G-ACh in PW and LSP

Thus the complete OAM concept within MPLS-TP uses IEEE Y.1731 (for Ethernet Service and
Connectivity OAM), BFD (for LSP connectivity OAM) and IEEE 802.3ah (for native Ethernet in
Ethernet First Mile). The picture below gives an overview:

Overview OAM in MPLS-TP

Furthermore, OAM add-ons in MPLS-TP include Performance Monitoring, and additional

functionalities for Fault Management.
As a result, this OAM concept provides Transport Networks deploying MPLS-TP with all the tools
required for Fault Management and Performance Management so as to guarantee data
throughput, and flag errors quickly and accurately so that path protection can be activated
within less than 50ms when needed.
3.1.3

Path Protection
In order to guarantee continuous transport in case of failure, path protection is an essential
topic. In IP/MPLS, Fast Reroute (FRR) can be used. This mechanism is also called MPLS Local
Restoration or MPLS Local Protection, as this is exactly what is says: it is a local restoration

Page 8 of 15

White Paper XA-W059-E-1

OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

network resiliency mechanism. In case of failure, a local Detour Path is activated in less than
50ms. A Point of Local Repair (PLR) redirects the traffic, which merges again to the primary LSP
in the Merge Point (MP). Each link or node can be a PLR. In a one-to-one backup approach, the
PLRs maintain separate backup paths for each LSP passing through. Maintaining state
information for backup paths protecting individual LSPs is a significant resource burden for the
PLR. Moreover, periodic refresh messages sent by the PLR, in order to maintain each backup
path, may become a network bottleneck. In an attempt to lower this burden, a many-to-one
approach is possible, with fewer states to be maintained and refreshed, but still represents a
considerable burden for the network. When a network consists of 100s or 1000s or nodes,
managing FRR becomes a real challenge.
Another method for path protection in IP/MPLS is Global Path Protection. Here the ingress LER
sets up a full primary and backup path from ingress to egress. Unfortunately, this comes at a
high cost in terms of time: detecting the fault and subsequent reverse notification of the fault
towards the ingress LER uses Layer 3 protocols and takes quite some time, far more than the
required sub 50ms. During this time, significant packet loss will occur, which is unacceptable in
Transport networks.
Therefore a two-step approach is often used in IP/MPLS: Primary LSP -> Detour Path (FRR) ->
Secondary Path. This causes several switchovers with different delays and jitters that are not
really appreciated in Transport Networks. And the signaling is still a considerable burden for the
network. Plus it adds complexity.

IP/MPLS Local Protection path (FRR) and Global Protection paths

For path protection in MPLS-TP, the FRR scheme is not used. Instead, Global Path Protection is
used, but with a procedure that is compliant with the sub 50ms switchover time. The OAM
mechanisms described above signal the LER (typically in less than 10 ms) that there is a
problem, and the LER immediately switches to the pre-provisioned backup path. The entire
procedure is guaranteed to occur in less than 50ms, and hence fulfills the Transport Network
requirements.

XA-W059-E-1
OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Page 9 of 15

MPLS-TP Path Protection

The elimination of FRR and other dynamic functions that prevent end-to-end monitoring (PHP
Penultimate Hop Popping, and LSP merge) in MPLS-TP, and the statically provisioned Global
Path Protection mechanism provide an excellent protection mechanism, comparable to the SDH
protection.
3.2

Control Plane

3.2.1

Control Plane or Management Plane?

The Control Plane of IP/MPLS is dynamic by nature: incoming packets are analyzed, and
assigned to a LSP by adding a label. The setup of the LSPs is also a dynamic process based on
Forwarding Equivalent Classes (FEC): packets with similar characteristics are forwarded in the
same way. The LSPs are by definition uni-directional, so the return path is usually different from
the forward path. These dynamic, unpredictable and asymmetrical elements pose serious
problems in Transport networks, as we want paths to be predictable and symmetrical.
Furthermore, the processing of the incoming packets requires considerable processing power in
the Network Elements. Also, the signaling of the routing protocols (IGP, BGP) and the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) again require considerable processing power Not to mention the
extensive manpower with very high skillset in layer 2 and layer 3 protocols to manage this
complex network and all this for a functionality and complexity that is absolutely unnecessary
in Transport Networks.
In MPLS-TP, the functions of the Control Plane are entirely within the Management System.
The Network Elements (NE) are not used for the inspection of incoming packets, setup of LSPs
or running routing or label distribution protocols. They do one thing, and one thing only, and
they do this extremely efficiently: forwarding Labeled Packets. Primary Paths and Backup paths
are statically provisioned by the Management system, end-to-end. The NMS keeps track of
available network elements, available links, used and available bandwidth of the entire network,
hence it can select the best Primary and Backup Paths with the required parameters.

3.2.2

Traffic Engineering (TE)

Traffic Engineering is the process that directs the traffic to where bandwidth capacity is
available. It is a method of optimizing the performance of a telecommunication network by
analyzing, predicting and regulating the behavior of data transmitted over the network. It
reduces the overall cost of operations by using bandwidth resources more efficiently, by

Page 10 of 15

White Paper XA-W059-E-1

OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

preventing a situation in which some parts of the network are over-utilized, while other parts
are under-utilized.
IP/MPLS allows to perform Traffic Engineering by using some extensions defined as MPLS-TE,
but the mechanism is based on Layer 3 (IP Routing) extensions and requires quite some effort
and a high skill level to do this right. The key TE mechanisms in IP/MPLS are Explicit Routing
(using Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) as the mechanism for establishing LSPs), using
constrained-based Path Selection Algorithm and extensions to OSPF/IS-IS for flooding resources.
Not an easy task, and not a task that can be performed by the Transport Operations
department.
Instead, MPLS-TP is designed to make Traffic Engineering inherently available, not in the
Control Plane, but in the Management Plane. The paragraph below describes the role of the
Management Plane, and how the database with the entire network configuration allows to
make the best choices for paths with specific requirements, especially the possibility to use the
under-utilized links. And all this with just some point and click actions. That is Traffic Engineering
at its best.
3.3

Management Plane
The importance of the Management Plane is different for IP/MPLS and for MPLS-TP. For
IP/MPLS, it is a supplement that helps manage the network in a more user friendly way.
Provisioning and configuration of an IP/MPLS network is done using Command Line Interface
(CLI), and requires a very high skill level from the operators. They need to thoroughly
understand the ins and outs of IP/MPLS, the influences of the various commands and
parameters, the topology of the network etc
In many cases, a Network Management System (NMS) is added to assist with these tasks. A
graphical user interface helps with the editing of the CLI commands. Scripts can be setup to
automate some of the tasks. Alarms are collected and displayed. But still, this NMS is only an aid
to assist the operators in the management of their network. The expertise is still with the
operators, who, as said before, need a very high skill level in Layer 2 and Layer 3.
With MPLS-TP, there is no Control Plane in the Network Elements, and the Management Plane
is key to controlling the network. It allows the operators to set up primary and backup paths
with the required parameters, much as they were used to doing in legacy transport networks
such as SDH/SONET. The Management Plane has a complete view of the entire topology of the
network, all existing primary and backup paths, all available and used capacities, and is able to
display this in a very graphical way. To create new services the operator need only define from
where to where, what kind of service and with which parameters, the Management Plane will
then determine the best Primary and Backup path, and provision the network elements. From
that point on, the service is created and the network elements run independently. When an
error occurs, the LERs automatically switch to the backup path without interference from the
Management Plane.
This operation method has many benefits in Transport Networks: as only static configurations
are needed, with predefined parameters, the end-to-end provisioning by means of a graphical
Management Plane is the fastest and most economical way to proceed. Operators need only to
be aware of the requirements of the service, the actual provisioning is taken care of by the

XA-W059-E-1
OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Page 11 of 15

management system. So fewer people are required, with lower skills, reducing OPEX quite
substantially. Additionally, as the Management Plane has a complete overview of available links
and bandwidths, it can select the optimum path, and use resources that would typically not be
favored by a dynamic protocol (dynamic protocols typically under-utilize long paths, thus
wasting resources).

Security
Security is a top consideration for all enterprises and telecom operators. Especially in the public
domain, e.g. Railway Operators, Utility Providers, Traffic Control etc safety is a key issue and
needs close attention.
Attacks through unauthorized access can cause destruction and corruption of data, removal of
access, disclosure of information or interruption of service.
Both IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP share the same protection mechanism that provides protection
against attacks on the Data Plane (Access Control ACLs and authentication, guaranteed end-toend delivery, encapsulation in pseudowires, no denial of service through traffic shaping and
traffic engineering), attacks on the Control Plane (abundance of control protocols, not possible
to fake signaling or reservation protocols) and attacks on the Management Plane (SNMPv3
management to NE, IPSec on DCN channel, Radius authentication, logging, reporting, audit
trail). These security aspects for MPLS and GMPLS networks are described in RFC 5920.
The security level of IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP is the same as for SDH networks, and this is more
than adequate for use in Transport Networks.

Operational Considerations
Cost reduction is a constant endeavor for all industries. That is why most of them are
consolidating their entire telecom infrastructure onto one packet based network often
referred to as the Next Generation Network (NGN). For this NGN network, MPLS is considered
to be the leading connection-oriented packet transport technology. As a consequence, many
have already deployed their core networks using IP/MPLS. Given this deployment of MPLS and
the desire to align packet networking with more traditional transport operations methods,
MPLS-TP is being standardized as a simplified version of MPLS for Transport Networks.
It allows companies to run the Transport Network, which typically has an order of magnitude
larger than their Core Networks, with fewer people that do not need extensive L2 and L3 skills.
Operational savings of MPLS-TP compared to IP/MPLS can be summarized as follows:

OPEX Saving Category

Enhanced OAM

Lower Power Consumption

Page 12 of 15

Saving
-

Much easier troubleshooting than IP/MPLS

Simplified network provisioning

5%

No control plane in NE requires less computing

power, resulting in Lower Power for same data
volume

51%

White Paper XA-W059-E-1

OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

No control plane in NE allows higher switching

capacity per RU
Smaller footprint brings real-estate advantage

68%

No need for detailed L2 and L3 trainings

Training manual for transport operator 10x smaller
than IP/MPLS based manual

80%

Transport Operator profile is much cheaper than

L2/L3 expert profile

50%

As the network grows, the complexity of IP/MPLS

networks grows exponentially, requiring a similar
growth in operational workforce

70%

Smaller footprint

Lower training cost

Lower hourly labor cost

Smaller workforce

Source: MPLS-TP based packet Transport Networks by UTStarcom, inc. USA

Source:A Financial Analysis of the Operational Benefits of MPLS-TP Transport Networks by Network Strategy Partners
Source: OTN Systems 20 years of experience

In both the Utility and the Railways world, the average age of the workforce is high. Many of
these companies face a large outflow of competencies in the next decade. In contrast to that,
the increase in dataflows and applications in their network means that they will have to do
much more with less resources, and that any simplification is a welcome asset. MPLS-TP offers
these companies precisely this advantage, as its simplicity will allow their current workforce to
be able to not only manage, but also design and maintain these networks. Hiring highly skilled IP
personnel is a recruiting challenge that can be avoided in this way.

Vendors Support for MPLS-TP

MPLS-TP is defined jointly by IETF and ITU, specifically because it was widely recognized that
IP/MPLS has some major problems when used in Transport Networks. As a result, MPLS-TP
equipment is available from most of the world leading switch/router vendors: CISCO, Juniper,
Huawei, Ericsson, ZTE, OTN Systems, IXIA, Hitachi, Metaswitch The European Advanced
Networking Test Center (EANTC) has conducted successful interop tests on MPLS-TP with a large
number of vendors, testing both MPLS-TP interworking between different vendors, and also
IP/MPLS MPLS-TP interworking.

XA-W059-E-1
OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Page 13 of 15

Summarizing Table
Transport Network Requirement

IP/MPLS

MPLS/TP

Predictable bandwidth

MPLS-TE (Traffic Engineering)

can be used. Done in Layer 3
as enhancement to standard
IGPs such as IS-IS or OSPF.

Designed to provide
predictable bandwidth
using the Network
Management System

Symmetrical Congruent paths for both directions

By definition, all paths are

uni-directional, and quite
some effort is required to
define congruent paths

By definition, all paths

are bi-directional and
congruent

Predictable and symmetrical delay and jitter

When paths are defined as

congruent paths, then their
delay and jitter is
symmetrical, but requires
quite some effort

Congruent paths mean

symmetrical delay and
jitter

Statically provisioned paths

IP/MPLS allows for

dynamically and statically
provisioned paths

All paths are statically

provisioned by use of a
management system

Long lived connections

Statically provisioned paths

are possible, but internally
many refresh messages to
keep these connections alive

All paths are by definition

long lived

Emphasis on manageability and deterministic

behavior

Emphasis is on any-to-any
connections, and a dynamic
control plane

This is exactly why MPLSTP was designed

Fast restoration time (<50ms)

FRR solves <50ms reqt, but

causes high network load.
Global Path protect does not
fulfill <50ms requirement

Primary and Backup Paths

with guaranteed <50ms
switchover. 1:1 and 1+1
protection, and hitless
switching

Powerful OAM, in-band OAM

End-to-end QoS

OAM in IP/MPLS is not inband, no Performance

Monitoring, dynamic
functions even prevent endto-end OAM capabilities

In-band OAM is
specifically added in
MPLS-TP, full suite of
OAM tools

Easy to manage by Transport Operations

department

Operating requires profound

IP and MPLS know-how by
highly skilled people, not
Transport Ops profile

Graphical end-to-end
service management,
SDH style

Security

Adequate security level as

specified in RFC 5920

Adequate security level

as specified in RFC 5920

Operational Costs

More people with higher IP

and MPLS related skills
needed that cost more to
train and operate

Fewer people needed,

only Transport Operator
skills, less IP or MPLS
skills required.

Standard available, easy to do

Could be done, but considerable effort
Cannot be done, or very difficult

Page 14 of 15

White Paper XA-W059-E-1

OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Conclusion
From the above, it is clear that even if IP/MPLS could be deployed in Transport / Aggregation
Networks, this is done at a high cost: as it was designed for connection Oriented any-to-any
connections, the use of IP/MPLS in Transport networks requires considerable functionality to be
disabled, parameters to be precisely tuned, and a lot of effort from high level IP persons to
manage the entire network, especially when it grows to 100s or 1000s of nodes.
These issues were recognized by IETF and ITU, and this is exactly why MPLS-TP was designed. So
it comes as no surprise that even if IP/MPLS could be deployed for Transport networks, MPLS-TP
is clearly the better and more cost effective choice. In the Core networks, clearly IP/MPLS is the
better choice because of the need for any-to-any communications. As MPLS-TP is designed for
100% interworking with IP/MPLS, the optimal scenario is to deploy IP/MPLS in the Core
Network, and MPLS-TP in the Transport Network.

Want more information? Contact us via

Info@otnsystems.com
www.otnsystems.com
OTN Systems NV
Industrielaan 17b
B-2250 Olen
Belgium
Disclaimer:
OTN Systems NV has written this document with the greatest care. Nevertheless, information published here may be
incomplete, outdated or no longer correct. OTN Systems NV may amend published information at any time, without
being required to give notice. You are recommended to check periodically via the OTN Systems website whether
information published in this document has been changed.
Liability:
Users may not derive any rights from information published in this document. OTN Systems NV does not accept any
liability for the contents and use of this document, or for any damage or losses resulting from its use.

XA-W059-E-1
OTN Systems NV All rights reserved

Page 15 of 15