Ethernet vs.

MPLS-TP
in Access Networks
Yaakov (J) Stein
CTO
RAD Data Communications

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 1

Agenda

Is MPLS-TP ready to replace Ethernet as the packet technology

that dominates access networks?
Brief review of access networks
Characteristics of Ethernet and MPLS-TP
Technical comparison: Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 2

Access Networks

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 3

Access Network Considerations

Residential
Customers
(IP)

Business Customers
(IP or Ethernet)

Cell Sites
(IP and/or Ethernet
and/or TDM
and Timing)

Access Network:
Q-in-Q Ethernet?
MPLS-TP ?

Other
Other
customer
customer
sites
sites

Core:
MPLS or IP
interface
(and theoretically PBB)

Internet

Data
Centers

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 4

Why Ethernet and MPLS-TP ?

First Mile

Customer
Network:
Ethernet

Access Network

Core
Network:
MPLS

Last Mile

Ethernet started in customer networks (LAN) and over the

years has moved into the access network (MEF)
MPLS started in the core network and is now trying to
conquer the access network
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 5

Access Network Segmentation

First/Last Mile
NTU/CLE

Middle Mile
Access
Node

Aggregation
Backhaul

Access Network

A recent trend is to segment the access network into:

First/Last Mile
Provides connectivity from customer site to first access node
Leverages physical layer technologies such as DSL, active/passive fiber,
microwave, HSDPA+, LTE,

Middle Mile
Collects and aggregates traffic from multiple access nodes
Provides backhaul towards core
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 6

Access / Core Differences (1)

Differences between core and access networks may translate to
protocol requirements differences:
Core

Access

Impact

No. of
Network
Elements

Few routers, Many CPEs, NTUs,

LSRs, switches DSLAMs,
aggregators

Strong pressure on

Data Rates

Higher

Core may guarantee

Lower

access NE price levels

Access needs to be
as touchless as
possible

QoS by resource
over-provisioning
Access needs QoS
mechanisms

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 7

Access / Core Differences (2)

Core
Topology

Security

Access

Impact

Richly connected Simple typically

trees or rings

Fault in access network

Walled garden: Easily accessible

Strong security
to and from
the outside
world
Loose security
on the inside

Customer networks also

affects fewer people, but

fewer bypass options
Core can get away with
fast rerouting
Access network requires
OAM and planned APS
considered walled gardens
Impractical to protect the
entire access network

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 8

Ethernet and MPLS-TP

Overview

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 9

Ethernet / MPLS-TP Differences (1)

While both Ethernet and MPLS are commonly used to carry IP,
there are some fundamental protocol differences:
Ethernet

MPLS-TP

OSI Layer

L0-L2
(but may run over MPLS)

Requires a server layer to

transport it (which may be
Ethernet)

Packet
Identification

Frames are inherently

self-describing

No PID

Scope

Destination address:
Global, not aggregated

Only locally-meaningful labels

Source
Identifier

Unique source address

No source identifier

Clients

IP and other

IP and other

Transport

Over SDH/SONET, OTN

Over SDH/SONET, OTN

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 10

Ethernet / MPLS-TP Differences (2)

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

OAM and
Protection

Fault Management
Performance Monitoring
APS

Fault Management
Performance Monitoring
APS

IP Protocols

No routing protocol

Leverages the entire IP suite

of protocols

defined
A number of L2CPs
Loop
Tolerance

No

3-bit (e.g., DiffServ)

Drop Eligibility
Additional
Bandwidth Profiles
Dedicated
Timing over Packet
Tools
Security (MACSec)
Developed By IEEE
Multiple competing SDOs
Priority
Marking

Can tolerate transient loops

(has TTL field)
3-bit (DiffServ)
None have been defined

IETF
Multiple competing SDOs
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 11

Ethernet and MPLS-TP:

Face-Off

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 12

Comparison Criteria
1. Fault Management Functionality
2. Performance Management
Functionality
3. Automatic Protection Switching
Mechanisms
4. Quality of Service Mechanisms
5. Traffic Handling Diverse Client Types
6. Timing High Accuracy Time and
Frequency Distribution

Each will be scored for:

Suitability: 2 points
Coverage: 4 points
Maturity: 4 points

7. Integration with Surrounding

Networks
8. CapEx
9. OpEx
10. Security
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 13

Fault Management Functionality:

The Arguments
The Need: Access networks require strong FM capabilities to minimize down-time
Ethernet
Two OAM mechanisms (Y.1731/CFM and EFM)
Unique source address, particularly amenable to trace-back functionality
Q-in-Q is not true client-server, but this is covered up by MEL
Y.1731 is full-featured comprehensive set of FM TLVs
EFM is more limited, but adds dying gasp critical for CPEs
Interop issues of both OAMs have finally been resolved; remaining details
are resolved via implementation agreements (e.g., MEF-30)
MPLS-TP
Had basic heartbeats (BFD) and diagnostics (LSP-ping)
The IETF designed MPLS-TP FM based on the Generic Access Channel and:
BFD for CC
LSP-ping for on-demand diagnostics
New frame formats to fulfill specific requirements
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 14

Fault Management Functionality:

The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity

Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Highly suited (SA)

No true address, requires

extra work

2 Points

1 Point

Y.1731 is full featured, EFM

fulfills its requirements

MPLS-TP FM similar to CFM

but missing dying gasp

4 Points

3 Points

Y.1731 and EFM are

interoperable and widely
deployed

Some MPLS-TP features are

seeing initial trials

4 Points

1 Point

10 Points

5 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 15

Performance Management Functionality:

The Arguments
The Need: Useful tool for maintenance and diagnostics of the access network
Ethernet

The ITU Y.1731 supports PM (loss, delay, PDV, ) using a request-response

model; IEEE 802.1ag does not

Y.1731 is used as the basis for commissioning procedures (Y.1564)

Widespread vendor interoperability has been demonstrated
MPLS-TP
RFCs 6374, 6375 define a set of PM functions based on the GA Channel

These functions were designed to be HW friendly, yet flexible

- Support byte or packet counters
- 1588 or NTP-style timestamps
- Traffic-counters or synthetic loss
Implementations have yet to be announced
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 16

Performance Management Functionality:

The Verdict
Ethernet
Suitability

Coverage

Maturity
Total

MPLS-TP

Neither protocol has an inherent advantage or disadvantage

2 Points

2 Points

Supports all features

Supports all features (may

be more flexible)

4 Points

4 Points

Y.1731 is finally interoperable

MPLS PM is not (widely)

implemented

4 Points

0 Points

10 Points

6 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 17

Automatic Protection Switching:

The Arguments
The Need: APS is a complex subject, requiring careful protocol work and proper
configuration. Solutions required for both linear and ring protection
Ethernet

Ethernet has a particular problem with rings

There are many open loop ring protection (e.g., G.8032) but these are not
compatible with QoS mechanisms

MPLS-TP

MPLS in the core exploits Fast ReRoute (RFC 4090) instead of APS
But FRR requires rich interconnection and so is usually not applicable
to access networks

The IETF has standardized RFC 6378 for MPLS-TP linear protection
There are also proposals for ring protection
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 18

Automatic Protection Switching:

The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity

Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Not suitable for ring protection

No particular strengths or
weaknesses

0 Points

2 Points

G.8031/G.8032 fulfill current

requirements

RFC 6378 (linear protection);

no ring protection RFC yet

3 Points

2 Points

G.8031/G.8032 have been

extensively debugged and
updated

MPLS-TP only partially

finalized and not yet
deployed

4 Points

1 Point

7 Points

6 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 19

Quality of Service:
The Arguments
Two types of QoS need to be considered to manipulate traffic:
1. Hard QoS (engineering): Connection Admission Control, Resource Reservation
2. Soft QoS (conditioning): Priority marking, discard eligibility, queuing, bucketing
Ethernet

PBB-TE (PBT) defines hard QoS, but is not widely implemented

P-bits for prioritization marking; discard eligibility marking in S-VLANs
MEFs BW profile defines a bucketing algorithm
Ethernet headers are self-describing support Traffic Awareness

MPLS-TP

MPLS-TE supports resource reservation but traffic engineering may not

be relevant for access networks
Traffic Class (and L-LSPs) support DiffServ prioritization application
awareness MPLS packets are not self-describing
DPI is required for Traffic Awareness
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 20

Quality of Service:
The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity
Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Supports all QoS types

Does not define for (bucketbased) traffic conditioning

2 Points

1 Point

MEF standards have been

proven

Without bucketing,
MPLS is at a disadvantage

4 Points

3 Points

BW profiles are standardized;

certification programs

MPLS-TP nothing special

4 Points

0 Points

10 Points

4 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 21

Traffic types:
The Arguments
The Need: No transport protocol is useful if it cant transport the required client
traffic
Ethernet

Differentiates traffic via Ethertype marking or LLC

Can directly carry IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, Ethernet, fiber channel, and lowrate TDM (MEF-8)
Does not directly carry other legacy traffic types (e.g., ATM, frame relay)
Can be carried indirectly via PHPed MPLS PWs
MPLS-TP

Can carry IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, and PWs (and through which Ethernet, Fiber
Channel and all legacy types)
Defining a new PW type requires IETF consensus but the new packet-PW
provides more freedom
Neither is universal but existing mechanisms can be extended to cover
new cases
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 22

Traffic types:
The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity
Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Supports arbitrary clients via

Ethertypes

Supports arbitrary clients via

PWs

2 Points

2 Points

Does not support all legacy

traffic types (ATM, FR)

Supports most traffic types

via PWs

2 Points

3 Points

Ethertypes have been widely

deployed

PWs have been widely

deployed

4 Points

4 Points

8 Points

9 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 23

Timing:
The Arguments
The Need: Distribution of highly accurate timing (frequency and Time of Day)
is crucial for some access network applications, notably cellular backhaul
Ethernet
Two protocols have become standard for this purpose:
1. Synchronous Ethernet (SyncE) is Ethernet-specific
2. IEEE 1588-2008 (defined for Ethernet and UDP/IP) for Timing over
Packet; on-path support elements (Boundary Clocks or Transparent
Clocks) have only been defined for Ethernet
MPLS-TP

MPLS does not define a physical layer

The IETF TICTOC WG is presently working on 1588oMPLS

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 24

Timing:
The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity
Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Supports ToP and defines a

physical layer to support SyncE

May be able to support

1588 but there can be no
SyncMPLS

2 Points

1 Point

Meets all requirements with

SyncE, 1588, BC, TC

1588oMPLS to support ToP

may be coming

4 Points

1 Point

ITU-T has defined profile(s) for

1588 use

MPLS presently has no

timing support

4 Points

0 Points

10 Points

2 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 25

Integration:
The Arguments
The access network needs to integrate with the core and customer networks.
Cost and complexity will be minimized by a smooth hand-off, i.e., access
protocol compatibility with other network protocols
Customer networks may have Ethernet or TDM interfaces (IP over Ethernet,
Ethernet over TDM, Ethernet over SDH)
Core networks are usually MPLS (IP over MPLS, MPLS over Ethernet, MPLS
over SDH)
Ethernet

Ethernet in the access is a perfect match for customer networks

Can not seamlessly interface with MPLS core
MPLS-TP
A reasonable match for customer network protocols since they can be
tunneled over MPLS
Reuses existing MPLS standards thus maximizing compatibility
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 26

Integration:
The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity
Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Perfect match for customer

network, but not for core

Best match for core

network, but not for
customer

1 Point

1 Point

Ethernet Q-in-Q and MAC-inMAC perfect customer handoff

Does not require GW for

forwarding to core, but
control protocols may not
interconnect

3 Points

2 Points

Ethernet Q-in-Q presently

widely deployed

Seamless MPLS still in its

infancy

4 Points

1 Point

8 Points

4 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 27

CapEx:
The Arguments
The Need: Access network providers need to keep their costs down; due to the
large number of Network Elements, access networks are CapEx-sensitive
Ethernet

Ethernet switching fabrics are inherently non-scalable (long global

addresses cant be aggregated)
Due to popularity, Ethernet switches are inexpensive (high volumes, large
R&D investment in cost reduction)
However, carrier-grade Ethernet switches need extra functionality
Ethernet supports CapEx-saving architectures (e.g., EPON)
MPLS-TP

LSRs are complex and expensive reducing the price of NEs (MPLS switch
instead of MPLS router) was the unstated motivation for MPLS-TP
Pure MPLS NEs have simple forwarding engines and thus should be less
expensive than Ethernet switches, but still require Ethernet or SDH or
OTN interfaces
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 28

CapEx:
The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity

Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Inexpensive, but can not scale

forever

Allows for significant cost

reduction vs. full LSR

1 Point

2 Points

R&D and volumes have driven

down Ethernet CapEx

MPLS-TP-specific devices
can be low cost

4 Points

4 Points

MEF certification programs for

carrier-grade Ethernet switches

Many trials are using LSRs;

chip sets are starting to
come out to address

4 Points

2 Points

9 Points

8 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 29

OpEx:
The Arguments
OpEx considerations that are taken into account:
- Direct operations cost
- Staffing
- Minimizing unchargeable overhead

Reduction of direct operations costs for networks with large number of NEs :
- Equipment must work reliably and be interoperate
- Minimum touch (auto-discovery, zero-touch configuration., etc.)
- Use of FM, Control Plane or Management Plane protocols

Maintaining competent staff requires:

- Availability
- Training
- Employee retention

Overhead minimization applies to:

- Per packet overhead
- OAM, CP/MP packets
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 30

OpEx:
The Arguments (Cont)
Ethernet
Basic Ethernet is zero-touch by design but carrier-grade may add many
configuration parameters
A large number of useful L2CPs (STP, ELMI, GVRP) but no universal CP
protocol
In addition to equipment certification, MEF has initiated certification for
carrier Ethernet engineers
Main Ethernet overhead is large, but tags add only a small delta
MPLS-TP

Basic MPLS relies on IP routing protocols but TP is designed to be able to

function w/o CP
GMPLS CP has been defined as an option
Can operate without IP forwarding (eliminating IP logistics); CP and MP
can be carried in GACh (although not yet developed)
Specific vendors have expert certifications but none specific to MPLS-TP
Same look and feel as other transport networks to minimize retraining
May leverage extensions to existing OSS
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 31

OpEx:
The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity

Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Metro Ethernets have been

shown to be low OpEx

Designed to be
inexpensively maintainable

2 Points

2 Points

Inelegant CP, available staff,

medium overhead

Learned from previous

efforts

4 Points

4 Points

Extensive experience and

certification programs

Extensive operational
experience only partially
applicable

4 Points

2 Points

10 Points

8 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 32

Security:
The Arguments
The Need: Security is perhaps the most important telecomm issue today

OAM, APS, QoS mechanisms are powerless to cope with Denial of Service
attacks

Access network NEs are frequently physically unprotected, so:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Ports must be protected

Packets must be authenticated and integrity checked
Confidentiality mechanisms may be needed
MPs and CPs must be hard-state

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 33

Security:
The Arguments (Cont)
Ethernet

Ethernet packets carry unique authenticatable source addresses

MACsec and its 802.1X extensions define mechanisms that can be used to
protect carrier networks (although hop-by-hop security model may not
always be ideal)
MPLS-TP

MPLS was designed for core networks (walled gardens) with the
assumption that there are no inside attacks
Forwarding plane attacks based on lack of authentication/integrity
Control plane attacks based on soft state of protocols

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 34

Security:
The Verdict

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity

Total

Ethernet

MPLS-TP

Has an authenticatable unique

SA

Has no source identifier and

uses soft-state CPs

2 Points

0 Points

MACsec and 802.1X, but may

need more

Little positive support (but it

does support attacks )

3 Points

1 Point

MACsec is starting to appear in

standard chipsets

MPLS community is not

addressing the TP security
problem

2 Points

0 Points

7 Points

1 Points

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 35

Summary: Final Score

Suitability

Coverage

Maturity

Total

Ethernet

16/20

35/40

38/40

89

MPLS-TP

14/20

27/40

11/40

52

Note: MPLS-TP lost

29 points due to lack of maturity
9 points due to lack of security
Caveats:
Deployments have particular (non)requirements, but all 10
considerations were given equal weight
Some coverage and all maturity scores will change over time
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 36

For information about RADs

Ethernet Access solutions,
visit www.ethernetaccess.com

www.rad.com
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 37