IET Communications

Review Article

Recent trends in MPLS networks: ISSN 1751-8628

Received on 15th November 2018
Revised 6th September 2019
technologies, applications and challenges Accepted on 28th October 2019
E-First on 13th December 2019
doi: 10.1049/iet-com.2018.6129
www.ietdl.org

Mohammad Azmi Ridwan1 , Nurul Asyikin Mohamed Radzi1,2, Wan Siti Halimatul Munirah Wan Ahmad1,
Fairuz Abdullah1,2, Md.Zaini Jamaludin1,2, Mohd Nasim Zakaria3
1Instituteof Informatics and Computing in Energy (IICE), Universiti Tenaga Nasional, 43000 Kajang, Malaysia
2Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, 43000 Kajang, Malaysia
3Architecture and Governance, TNB ICT, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

E-mail: m.azmiridwan@gmail.com

Abstract: Multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) networks are packet-based networks that offer considerable advantages,
including improved network utilisation, reduced network latency, and the ability to meet the quality of service and strict level
agreement requirements of any incoming traffic. A vast number of applications are now migrating to packet-based conditions
that cause increased pressure on network providers to change their systems. Innovations and improvements on MPLS are still
on-going to ensure that such networks can cater to the ever-increasing bandwidth demand whenever required. This study
provides a review of MPLS networks and their promising technologies, such as traffic engineering, protection and restoration,
differentiated services, and MPLS-transport profile (MPLS-TP) and its applications. This work also reviews recent issues on
MPLS networks and discusses the implementation of MPLS-TP networks in the power grid. A review of recent literature shows
that researchers should be careful in proposing new protocols or designs for MPLS to ensure that it achieves the most efficient
and optimal performance. Furthermore, it can be concluded that although MPLS is a promising technology for future networks,
there are challenges to overcome with regards to security and network flexibility, especially as far as migration to MPLS-TP is
concerned.

1 Introduction
Circuit-based networks can no longer withstand traffic demand due
to perpetually increasing bandwidth and delay-sensitive
applications. Packet-based applications, such as voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP), long-term evolution, and on-demand videos, are
becoming increasingly popular. Hence, current communication
networks must be improved so that they can manage traffic and
fulfil their service level agreement (SLA) [1]. However, network
designers face challenges in optimising network performance to
achieve the highest efficiency at a reduced cost.
Multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) can fully optimise
network resources and provide quality of service (QoS) treatment
to the traffic, which has become the de-facto standard for core
network infrastructure. MPLS is scalable, connection-oriented, and
independent of any packet-forwarding transport technology. MPLS
also reduces the Internet protocol (IP) address look-up at each
router and minimises network latency. MPLS improves packet
forwarding in a network and overcomes disadvantages of IP
forwarding [2]. An MPLS network can decide the best forwarding
path, allocate multiple services in the same network, and treat each
traffic based on QoS requirements.
Given the considerable benefits of MPLS networks, research is
being conducted to ensure that high-bandwidth demand can be
addressed. Several related reviews on MPLS networks [3–7], with
their advantages, are summarised in Table 1. However, these
studies have focused on only one MPLS technology, whereas our
review paper addresses broad-ranging MPLS technologies,
including traffic engineering (TE), differentiated services
(DiffServ), protection and restoration, and MPLS-transport profile
(MPLS-TP, an MPLS protocol), in addition to its applications and
recent issues. To the best of our knowledge, the present work is the
first to discuss recent issues and trends among MPLS technologies.
The organisation of this paper is as follows. Section 2 discusses
the architecture, terminology and advantages of an MPLS network.
Section 3 elaborates on the MPLS technologies, including TE,
DiffServ, protection and restoration, MPLS-TP and implementation
of MPLS-TP in the power grid. Finally, Section 4 is the
conclusions of this study.

Table 1 Recent review papers on MPLS network
Authors Year Reviewed area
Haddaji et al. [3] 2018 addressed technical challenges
encountered by service providers in
migrating to MPLS-TP networks
Suhaimy et al. [4] 2018 analysed recent MPLS-TP applications
Eugen [5] 2017 reviewed the performance of MPLS DiffServ
Kurimoto et al. [6] 2017 reviewed the MPLS software-defined radio-
oriented layer-2 on-demand virtual private
network services and network function
visualisation
Adewale et al. [7] 2016 conducted a comparative simulation study of
MPLS for latency and packet loss reduction
over a wide area network
2 Architecture and advantages of MPLS networks
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) introduced MPLS in
1997 to initially thoroughly address MPLS development. The
following issues of MPLS networks were identified:
(i) Improving scalability for network layer routing using labels to
aggregate forwarding information.
(ii) Improving flexibility in delivering routing services using
MPLS labels to identify traffic with QoS and thus provide special
treatment.
(iii) Implementing the label swapping paradigm to optimise
networks and thus enhance performance.
(iv) Simplifying router integration with cell switching-based
technology using common addressing, routing and management
control.

IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185 177

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 1  General architecture of the MPLS network
Fig. 2  Segments in MPLS header: Label, EXP, S, and TTL
Fig. 1 shows the conceptual design of an MPLS network.
Routers A and C are label edge routers (LERs). Depending on
which LER is the source or destination, the routers are known as
ingress LER or egress LER, respectively. The ingress LER assigns
labels to incoming packets and determines which forward
equivalent class (FEC) these packets belong to. Then, ingress LER
decides the corresponding egress LER and computes the best path
for the packets to route through the MPLS core network based on
the FEC. Alternatively, egress LER removes the labels from the
packets and forward them using the normal IP forwarding
procedure.
The core network has label switch routers (LSRs) connected as
either a ring or mesh topology. The LSR reads the label assigned
by the ingress LER and then swaps the label with another that will
determine the next LSR to be forwarded to. This process is
repeated until the packet arrives at the destination or egress LER.
The forwarding decision is based on the fixed-format header. The
path computed by ingress LER from the source to the destination is
called a label switch path (LSP). LSR does not store any route per
the IP forwarding scheme, thereby improving the scalability of the
network. Different types of traffic can share a single LSP, and
given sufficient network resources, one LSP can accommodate all
traffic regardless of their type. However, for critical applications
that require strict delay and bandwidth treatment, the network
defines TE or traffic policies. This process is further explained in
the next section.
Fig. 2 illustrates an example of an MPLS header. The header is
divided into four important segments. The first segment is the
label, which has a size of 20 bits and will be indexed into an MPLS
forwarding table. The next segment is experimental (EXP) bits,
where classes of services (CoS) are specified for each packet. With
vast types of applications tunnelling in the network, the EXP
segment is crucial for determining the QoS treatment that will be
provided to the traffic. The next segment is called the bottom-of-
stack (S) bit. This field is used when more than one label is
assigned to a packet. Finally, the time-to-live (TTL) segment is
utilised for path tracing, wherein the value continues to decrease
until it reaches the destination. The packet is discarded when the
TTL value becomes zero. In an MPLS network, IP headers on the
packets are still intact, but they are ignored by the LSRs. Instead,
LSRs investigate only the incoming label, go through the labelling
table in each LSR, and swap the label with a new outgoing label
immediately.
At the forwarding plane, labels are assigned to each LER and
LSR to find the best LSP. The control plane disseminates
information from the label. Information can be extracted from the
header in an MPLS network through two approaches. The first uses
a label distribution protocol (LDP), which is specifically developed
to distribute labels. The second approach extends the existing
protocol, called the resource reservation protocol (RSVP). LDP
offers ease of configuration, session maintenance and reliable
transport. In RSVP, LDP is extended to allow the creation and
maintenance of LSPs and create associated bandwidth reservation.
178
LDP and RSVP have advantages and disadvantages. LDP is
preferred in terms of the initial configuration and scalability.
However, RSVP is better suited for migrating from a data link
layer to an MPLS network. Precise planning is required to ensure
the best performance of the MPLS network.
2.1 Advantages of the MPLS networks
The MPLS mechanism can tunnel multiple types of traffic through
the core network. The tunnel is the path where traffic flows in the
MPLS core network. Tunnelling is a powerful tool because only
ingress and egress routers need to know the content of traffic
carried through the tunnel. Details are hidden from routers at the
core. With the use of MPLS tunnelling, traffic can be explicitly
routed by following traffic policies. Tunnels also provide additional
protection against data spoofing, given that packets can only be
injected at the ingress routers.
An MPLS network offers expenditure reduction by allowing
network operators to control only a single network for all service
types [8]. This feature is important given that emerging
applications offered by local providers are becoming increasingly
dense in terms of traffic and bandwidth consumption. Finally, the
encapsulation of the MPLS overhead, which is only 4 bytes per
MPLS header, is small and will reduce the latency and workload in
the core network [8].
3 MPLS technologies
In this section, MPLS technologies, including MPLS-TE,
protection and restoration, DiffServ, MPLS-TP and implementation
of MPLS-TP in the power grid network are discussed.
3.1 MPLS traffic engineering (MPLS-TE)
MPLS-TE is implemented in the network to avoid network
congestion and improve QoS. IETF RFC2720, Section 2.0
mentions that MPLS-TE aims to minimise packet loss and delay,
maximise throughput and support the enforcement of SLA [8].
Minimising congestion is the primary objective of TE. Congestion
typically occurs under two conditions, namely, insufficient network
resources and inefficient mapping of traffic onto available
resources. Network congestion can be addressed by expanding the
network capacity or using classical congestion control by limiting
data rate, flow control, queuing management, and schedule-based
control [8]. TE is useful in rerouting the traffic to ensure that data
are transported effectively [9].
In the case of link or node failures in an MPLS network, TE
verifies that the affected traffic can still reach its destination [10].
TE will determine that a specific path has the required
characteristics in accordance with QoS. For instance, high-priority
applications, especially protection systems, are routed via a path
that is less congested than others to minimise the delay. Without
congestion, data loss and delay are reduced, and throughput is
improved. Consequently, enhanced services can be provided to
consumers.
Local providers can take advantage of MPLS-TE to offer
guaranteed bandwidth services that allow clients to have a certain
amount of bandwidth available when required. However, the
following scenarios need to be highlighted by network providers
when setting up TE.
(i) The traffic must be forwarded along a predefined path (explicit
routing) [11].
(ii) The utilisation of bandwidth resources must be improved [12].
(iii) When resource contention occurs, control must be in place
over the resource [13].
IETF RFC 3031 provides two options for LSP route selection,
hop-by-hop and explicit routing [14]. Hop-by-hop routing allows
each node to choose the next hop for each FEC traffic
independently. In explicit routing, the ingress or egress LSR
specifies the entire LSP [8]. Explicit routing can be achieved by
implementing RSVP in the network. This process enables the LSP
to establish the MPLS forwarding state along the path defined at
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 3  Example of MPLS network topology for MPLS-TE explanation
the source. MPLS-TE uses LSP priorities marked at the header to
identify, of which LSPs are more important than others.
Consequently, the network can confiscate resources from low-
priority LSPs and guarantee that high-priority LSPs will always be
transported first. The high-priority LSP is established along the
shortest and least congested path to ensure maximum throughput
and minimum delay. Finally, when LSPs need to be rerouted due to
link failure, high-priority LSPs will have improved chances of
finding alternative paths as quickly as possible.
An example will be discussed using the topology shown in Fig.
3 to provide a thorough understanding of the MPLS-TE process.
Supposing Client 1 were to transmit to LSR E, two possible paths
can be used, A-B-E and A-C-D-E. From the operator point of view,
path A-B-E is preferred because it has fewer hops. However, if
path B-E is congested and has a high latency, the traffic will be
rerouted via path A-C-D-E. This scenario shows that MPLS does
not simply select the path with the lowest cost, i.e., the smallest
number of hops; instead, it chooses the best path for the traffic to
flow based on QoS requirements.
3.1.1 Issues and related works on MPLS-TE: Kumar et al. [2]
proposed a path protection scheme using MPLS-TE for IEEE 30
bus system communication for smart grids to improve network
resiliency, especially for sensitive protection data, such as SCADA,
data scanning, and the system refreshment rate for power utility
networks. MPLS-TE is used and further validated via OPNET to
promptly recover from path failure. Their simulation results
showed a reroute time of <10 ms with TE. SCADA is crucial,
delay-sensitive data; a microsecond of delay will cause inevitable
network failure. The implementation of TE in the MPLS network
can ensure that protection applications are also treated according to
their QoS requirements.
In multilayer networks, MPLS is usually on top of an optical
transport network. However, different providers usually operate
each layer, and information exchange is limited, thereby leading to
network degradation. An agreement on the type of information
shared from both layers is crucial for significantly improving
network performance. Therefore, [15] proposed dynamic multicast
traffic grooming in MPLS over the optical multilayer network. A
data-learning scheme was utilised on the IP/MPLS layer for logical
link cost estimation, and a light path fragmentation-based method
used on the wavelength division multiplexing network layer to
improve resource sharing in the grooming process. Therefore,
network performance can be greatly improved by managing traffic
in the network. The use of TE to optimise bandwidth in the
network is not sufficient when delay is not considered. Different
applications in the network may be delay-tolerant, but some
applications can have strict delay requirements. However, only a
few related works on TE have focused on both bandwidth and
delay requirements. Thus, Soorki and Rostami et al. [16] presented
a new bandwidth- and end-to-end delay-constrained routing
algorithm that uses data of the ingress and egress node pair in the
network.
3.1.2 Software-defined network for MPLS-TE: Software-
defined networks (SDNs) are emerging due to their flexibility and
programmability. With the separation of the control plane from the
data plane, the network can be managed and innovated easily by
programming. This feature allows local providers to execute
provision and monitoring effectively and improves network agility
[17]. A centralised single controller manages all the forwarding
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
devices; multiple controllers can be implemented for networks that
are too complex to be handled [18]. The main goal of SDN is to
allow flexibility for network providers and control the flow of data
through the network. This process enables any traffic policy or TE
to be executed with full flexibility rather than have the same
scheme provided by vendors [19].
Traffic in the MPLS network is normally dynamic and can be
congested at any time throughout the network. TE optimisation
over a single traffic matrix may have some limitations, especially
when many applications are forwarded in the network because a
single traffic matrix can have large measurement errors and
depicting traffic fluctuations is insufficient. Moreover, large-scale
networks are major challenges for network management to provide
QoS guarantees and perform optimisation during network
management. The integration of MPLS-TE with SDN can fully
optimise the network.
Guo et al. [20] presented a multiple-traffic matrix approach to
solve large measurement errors that occur when the single traffic
matrix is used. Bahnasse et al. [21] presented a solution using SDN
to manage complex large-scale networks. The TE/SDN network
architecture can effectively manage and provide QoS requirements
for multiple service traffic. The reliability of the proposed model is
dependent on its ability to achieve high-quality VoIP and video
with acceptable delay for HTTP response pages. A related issue in
MPLS-TE is the static bandwidth reservation mechanism of RSVP.
The RSVP mechanism in the control plane reserves the same
bandwidth at each hop along the tunnel and ignores the difference
of available bandwidth of other links. This issue rapidly results in
bandwidth exhaustion at the congested link even with underutilised
links. TE/SDN can solve this problem by providing the non-
uniform bandwidth reservation to improve the load balancing and
resource utilisation of the network further [22]. By allowing
dynamic bandwidth reservation, more protocol label switching
tunnels can be computed than that under uniform reservation.
An important feature of the MPLS network is that packets are
forwarded by performing label look-up at the labelling table in
each LSR. Each application will have different EXP bits, and
ingress LER will decide on the best path based on the priority
level. However, as the bandwidth and complexity increase, a
shortage of MPLS labels will occur. Huang et al. [23] claimed that
label consumption is expanding rapidly, thereby leading to
management complexity, increased operational and capital
expenditure and table look-up latency, and reduced performance
and scalability. Therefore, the author proposed a method of solving
the label space reduction problem in the MPLS network using a
hybrid MPLS Open-Flow network scheme via LSP multiplexing.
This goal was achieved using label stacking and TTL bits to
control packet switching between different LSPs. As a result,
traffic with different sources and destinations may share the same
LSP, thereby reducing the label space reduction problem with
transparent topology
According to the abovementioned studies, congestion may still
occur even when TE is implemented in a network. Therefore,
additional research is needed to improve network traffic
optimisation. Having only a hardware-based MPLS network will
restrict local providers in complying with fixed traffic policies
provided by vendors. However, SDN is fully programmable and
offers full flexibility; consequently, the researchers can vary traffic
loads and other performance evaluation parameters, such that
innovation can be performed easily.
Even with the benefits of separating the control and data planes,
as implemented in SDN or network virtualisation, one shortcoming
still exists; the lack of rapid and reliable implementation prevents
the network from growing to its desired capabilities. In an effort to
improve this, Mazhin et al. integrated MPLS with network
virtualisation in their work [24]. This architecture can expand
Internet flexibility and pave the way for the development and
commercialisation of network virtualisation and next-generation
MPLS. Thus, the integration of MPLS with SDN can substantially
impact the future of telecommunication industries.
179

Fig. 4  End-to-end protection using the backup LSP
Fig. 5  FRR protection by using the detour/bypass LSP
3.2 MPLS protection and restoration
All traffic in the MPLS network must be delivered with zero packet
loss and at low latency [25]. This requirement is due to the
bandwidth and delay-sensitive content of important applications,
especially protection data. The network must not suffer from any
data discrepancy between the source and destination. This issue
creates a need for a protection and restoration mechanism, which is
crucial in promptly handling any failure [26].
Traffic with strict SLA requirement, such as video and VoIP,
has stringent tolerance toward reliability and traffic loss. Similar to
an MPLS network, immediate recovery after a failure is essential,
especially for multiservice networks with applications of different
priority levels. The MPLS fast reroute (FRR) was introduced by
Cao et al. [25] to provide a guarantee for MPLS tunnels in the
event of a failure; this concept is the same as that offered by
synchronous optical networking (SONET) automatic protection
switching (APS). The primary difference between FRR and
SONET APS is that FRR can consistently provide a relatively
small recovery time because the recovery decision is made locally.
The efficiency of the network's recovery was dependent on the
rates of network failure detection and traffic switching to an
alternative path. This dependency shows that rapid failure detection
is a vital component of MPLS protection.
The first step in providing recovery is detecting failure as soon
as it occurs. This process can be done either via hardware-based
methods, such as using packet-over-SONET/synchronous digital
hierarchy (SONET/SDH), or non-hardware-based techniques, such
as the implementation of an algorithm at a high layer in the
network [27]. Effective fault detection and fault notification
implementation are crucial in providing reliable MPLS protection
[27]. Protection comes in two forms, end-to-end protection and
FRR.
End-to-end protection or path protection is commonly used in
network deployment. Fig. 4 shows that LSP protection is achieved
using a primary and backup LSPs. The backup LSP takes over the
traffic in case the primary LSP link fails. Upon receiving the RSVP
error at the client's node, the primary LSP switches the traffic to the
backup LSP [28]. One shortcoming of this protection scheme is
that traffic will continuously transmit over the failed primary LSP
until the RSVP error reaches the head end, thereby causing mode
delay and data loss. Nonetheless, this option is promising because
it can provide accurate information about where the traffic will
flow following the failure. However, the backup LSP path may not
be connected to the same primary router (Router 1). This limitation
may not provide meaningful protection in the event Router 1 fails
and both backup and primary LSPs are compromised. Thus, having
path diversity is also a vital issue.
The next protection option is FRR, which aims to minimise
delay in the event of traffic failure. Fig. 5 illustrates that the traffic
180
at the failed link is rerouted instead of having protection at the head
end of the entire path. The advantage of FRR is that the network
can choose which resources to protect. In the event of failure,
protection can be applied promptly, and traffic is forwarded to the
rerouted path, which is computed and signalled prior to failure.
Another advantage is that switching time can be improved using
this mechanism. Local protection comes in four variants.
(i) Link protection
(ii) Node protection
(iii) One-to-one protection
(iv) Facility protection
Link protection refers to the ability to protect traffic from being
forwarded to the LSP in the presence of failure along the LSP. To
protect against link failure, a backup path was set up around the
link for one-to-one protection. Link failure is the most common
type of failure in a network. A link might fail when the link itself
has a problem or when the other link-end has node failure, thereby
disconnecting the entire interconnected link. All four local
protection variants have their own advantages and shortcomings.
However, no protection scheme in the literature can cover all four
[8].
To ensure rapid protection, a backup path must be ready to
forward traffic as soon as the failure is detected. To achieve this
feature, all backup paths must be computed and signalled
beforehand, and the forwarding state must be set up for switchover.
The forwarding state must be placed at the head and tail ends or the
merge point (MP) of the backup tunnel or point of local repair
(PLR) to enable the forwarding of traffic into the backup at PLR
and back to the main LSP at MP [8]. In the MPLS network, LSR
forward the packets through label swapping, and rerouting
decisions are mapped into MPLS labels for protection. Thus, traffic
labels that arrive over the backup tunnel will be the same as those
over the failed link. For example, Fig. 5 shows that the label of
data to be transmitted to Router 3 via Routers 2 and 6 will be the
same. To ensure that traffic arrives at MP (Router 3) with the
correct label, the backup tunnel label must be pushed on top of the
protected LSP label at PLR (Router 2), and penultimate hop-
popping (PHP) must be performed for the backup tunnel label
before MP (Section 3).
Network scalability will enable easy expansion and reduce the
inconvenience of network providers in delivering a communication
network to newly developed areas. In terms of local protection, the
scalability must be addressed. Stronger protection means additional
configuration efforts that involve intensive labour and manual path
computations. However, many current implementations can
compute and establish protection paths dynamically. The complex
deployment of a network will impact the number of resources that
can be protected in the network. Network providers must,
therefore, decide on the type of protection (1:1 or N:1 path
protections). Moreover, network topologies, such as string-of-
pearls and dual-plane yield, require long protection paths that may
increase the forwarding state of the network. The benefit of local
protection comes at a cost. Hence, understanding how the
deployment of local protection affects resource consumption on the
router is crucial [8].
3.3 DiffServ-aware traffic engineering
Having MPLS-TE alone still does not guarantee QoS because
MPLS-TE is not aware of the DiffServ classes [27]. Therefore,
DiffServ is introduced to ensure that TE is aware of the types of
applications for each traffic situation and will be treated based on
their QoS requirement. DiffServ-aware aims to eliminate the
requirement of having separate physical networks for different
applications. This feature of MPLS, i.e. the ability to share all
services with different SLAs in one common core, is attractive.
SLA requirements include different scheduling, queuing, and drop
behaviour based on application type and bandwidth guarantees that
are on a per-application basis [29].
At present, network providers assign different applications to
various CoS and mark traffic accordingly. Although this solution is
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 6  Similarities and differences between MPLS-TP and previous MPLS
networks
good, it works well only when network resources are sufficient.
During network congestion, the traffic will decrease or may
experience delay and violate SLAs.
In the use of MPLS-TE alone, LSPs are set up by choosing
links with available resources while ensuring that the bandwidth is
always ready for traffic consumption [30]. The only limitation is
that MPLS-TE operates only on available bandwidth across all
classes. In contrast, DiffServ-TE ensures that MPLS-TE is aware
of the CoS by allowing resource reservation and delivers QoS
guarantees to meet strict SLAs.
However, SLA still cannot be fully guaranteed even after
resources are reserved based on the level of applications with
properly marked traffic. Further mechanisms, such as policing and
admission control, have to be integrated to ensure that traffic stays
within limits. At present, network providers use overprovisioning
to achieve the goal of service guarantees by ensuring that
bandwidth is available more than needed. However,
overprovisioning has its own cost and may only work in normal
cases with no guarantee of success in the event of network failure.
DiffServ-TE works by first determining the class type of traffic.
The basic DiffServ-TE requirement is to be able to separate
bandwidth reservation for different classes of traffic. This need
requires the network to always keep track of how much bandwidth
is available for each type of traffic dynamically at any given time
on all paths and routers throughout the network. LSPs that are
traffic-engineered to guarantee bandwidth from a class type are
called DiffServ-TE LSPs. After traffic classification, the path is
computed by calculating all known available bandwidth per class
type for all priority levels.
Traffic is mapped to a DiffServ-TE to the correct scheduler
queue in two ways.
(i) EXP bits in the MPLS header are set appropriately at the LSP
ingress E-LSP.
(ii) The scheduling behaviour is encoded in the forwarding state of
the label of the LSP and EXP bits are used to convey the drop
preference for the traffic L-LSP.
Once the traffic is mapped to the correct LSP, it will receive the
correct DiffServ treatment. DiffServ provides QoS by dividing
traffic into a small number of classes and allocating network
resources on a per-class basis. Eugen[5] conducted a theoretical
analysis on MPLS DiffServ using the OPNET modeller simulator,
and their simulation results confirmed that DiffServ allows high-
priority traffic to arrive at the destination faster than low-priority
traffic while improving queuing delay. Meanwhile, MPLS-TE
enables network resource reservation and optimisation. The
integration of DiffServ with TE combines the advantages of both,
wherein the FRR mechanism improves the overall MPLS network.
Thus, traffic-engineered LSPs with per-traffic class granularity and
guaranteed resources for each traffic and strict QoS requirement
can be achieved in normal and network failure cases.
3.4 MPLS-TP
Network providers are forced to revamp their network
infrastructure to minimise operating cost. At present, circuit-based
transport network is evolving to packet-based transport due to the
flexibility and cost-benefit offered by packet-switching technology.
For this purpose, MPLS-TP is currently being developed to form a
basis for next-generation packet transport networks [31].
The goal of MPLS-TP is to provide transport functionality in
MPLS while preserving the existing MPLS architecture [32]. The
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
main requirement of MPLS-TP is to allow the static creation of
LSP and provide the same features and functionality of
SONET/SDH networks, such as performance monitoring, fault
detection and delay measurement. IETF, in cooperation with ITU,
has defined the requirements for MPLS-TP in IEFT RFC 5654 [8],
including
(i) The MPLS-TP data plane must be a subset of the MPLS data
plane, as defined by the IETF.
(ii) The design of the MPLS-TP should, as far as reasonably
possible, reuse existing MPLS standards.
(iii) Mechanism and capabilities must be able to interoperate with
existing IETF MPLS (RFC3031) and IETF Pseudowire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (RFC3985) control and data planes where
appropriate.
(iv) MPLS-TP must support traffic-engineered capabilities that
allow deterministic control of the use of network resources.
(v) MPLS-TP must support bidirectional transport paths with
symmetric bandwidth requirements.
(vi) MPLS-TP must support static provisioning of transport paths
via the management plane.
Additional important requirements for Operations
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) are acquired in the
MPLS-TP network, such as congruency between the data path and
OAM, to allow in-band OAM and to have consistent OAM
capabilities for layer 2, pseudowires and LSPs. For improved
network resiliency and protection, the 50 ms protection standard
and various path protections, such as 1:1, 1 + 1, and M:N, must be
supported [33]; in addition, ring topologies and linear and meshed
networks must be efficiently provided. Nonetheless, the most
important architecture goals of an MPLS-TP network are
compatibility with the existing MPLS architecture [32], availability
to static and dynamic provision systems, and support of (without
dependence on) IP addressing. These goals are a continuation of
using IP addressing, but IP routing is not required because an
MPLS network uses label switching for packet forwarding. The
advantage of using MPLS-TP over the use of its predecessors, such
as IP/MPLS and GMPLS, is compatibility with existing MPLS
technology even with added important capabilities, such as OAM
and resiliency. Some features in previous MPLS are discarded,
such as equal cost multipath routing, LDP and PHP.
Fig. 6 shows that MPLS-TP is part of MPLS but with a set of
new functions satisfying specific requirements of transport
networks. The bidirectional feature (congruency) is needed for
differential protection relay communications. Static provisioning
behaves similar to SDH, which operates through NMS but provides
transport-like resilience with 50 ms protection switching [34].
Meanwhile, in-band OAM is similar to SDH management, which
performs monitoring, fault detection alarm and multilevel
operations. Nevertheless, resilience and OAM functions are salient
features of MPLS-TP. In terms of resiliency, MPLS already has a
rich set of protection and restoration mechanisms, such as LSP
FRR and path protection. However, the vital focus in the context of
transport-like networks is resiliency, which can trigger protection
from OAM and provide optimised protection in any topology,
especially in the ring-type topology, which is the most common
topology in MPLS networks. Meanwhile, the OAM function helps
provide crucial functions, such as reducing operational complexity
and cost, by allowing automatic detection, localisation and failure
handling. It also ensures network availability by locating and
dealing with failures even before clients report them and by
helping maintain SLAs in normal and failure operating conditions.
3.4.1 Integration of MPLS-TP with SDN: Similar to the MPLS
network, MPLS-TP is integrated with SDN to improve network
flexibility and integrity by offering programmability, which is
provided by SDN. Related works have proposed a resource pooling
mechanism to improve network agility [35], implemented a virtual
router based on SDN transport with automatic topology discovery
function with MPLS-TP network [36], developed a generic model
transport for SDN and MPLS-TP that enables easy operation of
181
intra- and inter-domain network service [6], and reviewed a
backbone network that uses MPLS-TP and reconfigurable optical
add-drop multiplexers to create a nationwide network with new
SDN-oriented on-demand VPN functions [37, 38].
All related works on integrated SDN and MPLS-TP verify that
SDN can improve the networks' protection feature and enhance
throughput. SDN reduces the communication between operators of
different network layers and can cope effectively with the volatile
nature of traffic. Furthermore, by using cloud computing, users can
use network resources in carrier networks on-demand. With the use
of virtual equipment, such as the virtual router proposed in [36],
flexibility and automated operational control are enhanced by
means of programming rather than with the use of a hardware-
based router.
3.4.2 Issues and related works on protection and restoration
in MPLS-TP networks: The majority of related works on MPLS-
TP involve protection schemes. Some recent works involve
protection involve provisioning [35, 38–40]. Hayashitani et al. [35]
proposed to separate the management fault and working links to
manage network resources efficiently and thus overcome the
inefficiency resource management issue in the event of failure.
Iijima et al. [38] claimed that the MPLS preceding MPLS-TP was
not designed to transport power utility data, especially when
protection traffic is involved. A real-time hardware-in-the-loop
testing was configured to validate the MPLS-TP network, and the
study confirmed that the MPLS-TP network could indeed meet the
requirements of protection traffic.
Kim et al. [39] proposed the separation of service and
management functions to simplify the performance monitoring of
LSP in the network. The proposed provisioning procedure was
simple, capable of reducing provisioning time, and improves
network scalability. Finally, according to Kolhar et al. [40],
increased latency in an MPLS network was due to the slow
convergence and complex interactions between switches. A
generalised topology discovery, operation monitoring and
provisioning controller were designed for carrier-grade transport
networks. The fault recovery time was significantly improved by
27 ms while maintaining the traffic load lower than that under
Open-Flow.
Several recent works on OAM-related protection are available,
such as [34, 41–43]. The concept of mobile MPLS-TP with the use
of OAM channels was proposed by Pijanka and Rózański, [34] to
support the mobility of users and optimise the ‘handoff’ procedure
in a hierarchical network topology. The combination of mobile
MPLS with additional OAM functionalities combined the
advantages and capabilities of MPLS-TP technology for mobile
users. The proposed mobile MPLS-TP eased the handoff procedure
more than the classic mobile MPLS. Sul et al. [41] claimed that
MPLS-TP networks were still complex despite their promising
features and on-the-shelf routers were not reprogrammable. Hence,
a hybrid SDN and MPLS-TP network were proposed with a
centralised OAM engine. The hybrid network could meet
protection requirements. Kim et al. [39] verified the performance
of MPLS-TP packet transport OAM and protection mechanism.
Their work showed that MPLS-TP could achieve a protection
switching delay below the 50 ms benchmark while protecting LSP
tunnels. Blair et al. [42] proposed a point-to-multipoint MPLS
network, which retained the features of TE while reducing load
with QoS guarantee capabilities. The proposed network managed
to transfer data for in-band OAM within 50 ms, which was the
protection requirement for OAM packet processing.
Differential protection previously ran on TDM-based networks,
evolving into packet-based network and circuit emulation (CE) is
required. The commonly used protocols were TDM over packet
(SAToP) and service over packet-switched network (CESoPSN),
which were in accordance with ITU-T G.8261. However, Bächli et
al. [43] proposed a novel approach to differential protection signal
transmission over packet-switched networks using adaptive timing
circuitry due to issues regarding jitter and asymmetrical delay.
Frequency stability was implemented in switch hardware that
performed similarly to SDH according to ITU-T G.8262 and ITU-
T G.8264. The proposed technology prevented load impairments
182
and maintained stable holdover during topology changes. The
interworking of CE and MPLS-TP allowed guaranteed
performance in critical applications even under extreme conditions.
Kim et al. [44] stated that linear protection switching solutions
in packet transport networks, as in MPLS-TP and Ethernet, did not
provide dual-node interconnection capability between two recovery
domains. This issue further contributed to the delay, especially
when many connections were affected by a single failure in
multiple recovery domains. Therefore, a collective interconnection
message scheme was proposed in [44] to improve the performance
of linear protection dual-node interconnection in multiple recovery
domains. The proposed scheme could perform rapid traffic
recovery and relieve the communication burden with a recovery
process that was within the 50 ms standard.
Path protection switching management was proposed by
Rodríguez-Pérez et al. [45] to solve the limited network
survivability in multilayer transport during a network failure. A
design model for a multilayer network was developed to compare
the best utilisation and cost-effective protection scheme. This study
revealed that having a single protection process in each layer of the
network was the best and most cost-effective protection scheme.
Azizi et al. [46] extended the wrapping and steering scheme from
[47] for enhanced protection. They showed that the subprotection
time was below 50 ms with enhanced time characteristic and
resource utilisation. Choi [48] showed a significant increase in data
buffer hit ratio as the buffer size was incrementally increased by
implementing the guarantee of services for the local recovery of
lost traffic in the network.
3.4.3 QoS issues in the MPLS-TP network: The QoS
mechanism and benefits of MPLS-TP transport networks were
thoroughly explained [49, 50]. However, migrating from SDH to
MPLS-TP networks has its own challenges. Bandwidth and QoS
offered by the current service are no longer sufficient. In [3], the
challenges faced by service providers in moving from legacy SDH-
based to MPLS-TP networks were reviewed, and the results
indicated that the integration of optical and packet-based networks
indeed offers simplicity, flexibility and scalability and improved
results in backhaul networks. The use of MPLS-TP as the metro
access network offered rapid end-to-end service provisioning.
Moreover, with TE capabilities, performance monitoring and QoS
requirement could be enhanced. Providing bandwidth-on-demand,
as proposed in [51], also improves the network QoS. As studied in
[52, 53], MPLS-TP networks could offer improvement in terms of
QoS while reducing signalling and packet delivery cost.
Nonetheless, providing the best capacity with minimal delay and
low CAPEX and OPEX was challenging. With the use of the
mathematical model in [54], the overall cost could be minimised by
trading off the link capacity cost versus the expected network delay
cost. Separating different services into several links in the network
may seem to be a cost-effective solution, but it does not satisfy the
desired performance and increases management complexity and
deployment. Therefore, having an acceptance threshold or
benchmark is significant as long as MPLS is implemented in a
realistic network environment. Recent works in [3, 46, 48–52]
suggested that although MPLS-TP itself may be well-equipped
with network protection schemes, traffic policies and TE, research
was still needed to serve the perpetually increasing number of
traffic generated in the core network.
Table 2 summarises the most recent related works on the MPLS
state-of-the-art technologies.
3.5 MPLS-TP in the power grid network
Deploying IP/MPLS or MPLS-TP in smart grid networks is a
controversial subject. Equipment developers seek to obtain the best
of both areas through specific management tools and simplify the
implementation of IP/MPLS into MPLS-TP platforms. MPLS-TP
networks are still immature due to their remarkably late
introduction, thus becoming debate subjects. In the smart grid,
deploying MPLS-TP is conducted not from scratch but as part of
an evolutionary transformation plan [57]. At present, smart grid
communication networks are widely based on SDH/SONET. Time-
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
sensitive applications are designed to be transported over circuit-
based networks. Synchronous data streams often need to be
emulated across the packet core. In the smart grid, all
telecommunication network controls are performed in a centralised
network management platform with well-adapted processes and
skills to operate and maintain the SDN/SONET-based network. In
this context, MPLS-TP seems to be more suitable than IP/MPLS
either with or without TE capabilities [58] because MPLS-TP
networks have more similarities to SDH/SONET circuit-based
networks.
MPLS-TP forwarding labels are produced by a central network
management system, which allows end-to-end main and backup
Table 2 State-of-the-art technologies for MPLS networks
MPLS Author Year Advantages
technology
integration of Bahnasse et al. 2018 further improved the load
MPLS-TE [21] balancing and resource
utilisation of the network
with SDN Huang et al. [23] 2018 overcame the label space
reduction problem in MPLS
network
Guo et al. [20] 2017 improved measurement error
issues when using the single
traffic matrix
Mazhin et al. [24] 2017 improved network flexibility
MPLS-TE Premkumar and 2017 enhanced network resiliency
Saminadan. [2] for sensitive protection data
MPLS Eugen [5] 2017 presented simulation results
DiffServ that proved the benefits of
DiffServ in terms of delay
integration of Kurimoto et al. 2017 reconfigurable optical add-
MPLS-TP [6] drop multiplexers to create
nationwide burden
with SDN Kurimoto et al. 2016 intra- and inter-domain
[37] network-enabled generic
model transport for SDN and
MPLS-TP network
Lim et al. [36] 2016 automatic topology discovery
in the MPLS-TP network
MPLS-TP Kim et al. [44] 2018 achieved fast traffic recovery
protection and relieved the
communication burden
Kolhar et al. [40] 2016 reduced fault recovery time
by 27 ms and decreased
traffic load
Blair et al. [42] 2016 achieved 50 ms protection
switching time
Bächli et al. [43] 2016 achieved guaranteed
performance for critical
application even under
extreme conditions
Choi [48] 2016 significant growth of data
buffer hit ratio
Kim et al. [55] 2016 network availability subject to
the maximised subprotection
switching time of 50 ms
Pijanka and 2016 proposed mobile MPLS-TP
Rózański. [34] concept reduced the handoff
speed compared with classic
mobile MPLS
MPLS-TP Haddaji et al. [3] 2018 laid out the challenges faced
QoS by service providers to
migrate from legacy SDH to
MPLS-TP
Sakamoto et al. 2016 proved that the dynamic
[56] policing control will efficiently
share the bandwidth for
different services
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
route decisions, as currently presented by SDH/SONET. For IP/
MPLS, network operations depend on control plane
communications. In terms of QoS and deterministic behaviour,
some utility applications use a dedicated resource, such as separate
fibres for protection and strictly out of the shared network (offered
by the MPLS-TP to have more definitive LSPs compared with
those in IP/MPLS). Similar to SDH, MPLS-TP responds to all
existing and newly developed packet-based service requirements in
utility-sized networks. Traffic rules can be adopted to nodes to
build forwarding labels at any moment. IP/MPLS provides
considerable technical capabilities but comes with increased
complexity. Performing MPLS-TE requires good knowledge of
traffic shapes and characteristics, such as in SDH/SONET. Finally,
the transition from SDH to MPLS-TP is feasible due to the similar
behaviour and network management offered by MPLS-TP. IP/
MPLS is suitable for other types of network operation, such as
telecom providers with large and dynamic networks.
Roth et al. [59] presented a case study to look into the
hybridisation of legacy TDM with MPLS-TP network. The
traditional TDM network is kept running via TDM services while
new packet-switched applications were directly connected to the
MPLS-TP infrastructure by stages. The proposed hybrid migration
plan for a utility company was implemented in a power utility in
Oman's electric grid network for proof of concept. The results
showed a smooth migration path and stated that MPLS-TP fulfilled
the requirement in utility communication network. Additionally,
Ramirez et al. [60] presented a theoretical-practical evaluation of
MPLS-TP on teleprotection. The authors conducted a laboratory
test using two pieces of teleprotection equipment connected
directly via fibre optic with C37.94 interfaces, and the transmission
time was compared with that of the same equipment connected via
the MPLS-TP network. The total delay of teleprotection services
through MPLS-TP communication was 7.5 ms, whereas that of the
direct connection was 4 ms. Nonetheless, the delay for the MPLS-
TP network remained lower than the latency requirement of 10 ms
for teleprotection. From the analysis performed in the laboratory
test, the time response was suitable for energy transport network as
an optimised path of the progressive migration from the legacy
TDM platform to the modern and reliable packet-switched
network.
4 Conclusion
This study reviews important MPLS technologies, including TE,
protection and restorations, DiffServ-aware TE and MPLS-TP. The
technologies are explained, and recent issues and related works
were discussed. As transport networks have become increasingly
congested and complex, a need to migrate from circuit-based to
carrier-grade packet-based networks has emerged. MPLS is a
promising solution for the increasing number of applications that
require different QoS treatments that share the same core network.
MPLS offers one of the best technologies for dynamically
managing traffic with different SLA requirements and overcoming
failure promptly to ensure that consumers can enjoy uninterrupted
services provided by their network providers. This work also
discusses the expansion of IP/MPLS, which is MPLS-TP. In such a
network, important features from the previous MPLS network are
maintained, whereas inefficient features are removed, and
improved protection features are implemented. Aside from telecom
networks, power utilities require a reliable communication system,
especially with the migration from legacy grids to smart grid
networks, which require the implementation of additional
applications. This study reviews the implementation of MPLS-TP
for smart grid networks. Findings show that such implementation is
preferred due to such network's similarities to SDH/SONET-based
networks and its suitability for static networks, as in smart grids.
The benefits of MPLS-TP indicate the future of smart grid
telecommunication networks. Although MPLS networks can
perform well with sophisticated TE and multi-service aware, it still
needs constant improvement. Based on current issues and research
trends, the most common issue is protection, which is the primary
concern of every network. Research on protection is on-going to
ensure that networks can promptly react to failures. SDN is also
183
starting to merge with MPLS-TP due to the flexibility and
programmability offered by SDN. Together with the advantages of
MPLS, MPLS/SDN can be a promising solution for the ever-
increasing congestion and complexity of next-generation networks.
5 Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and funding of the
TNB Seed Fund (grant no. U-TI-RD-18-07).
6 References
[1] Mushtaq, A., Patterh, M.S.: ‘QoS parameter comparison of diffServ-aware
MPLS network’. 2017 Int. Conf. on Recent Innovations in Signal Processing
and Embedded Systems (RISE), Bhopal, India, 2017, pp. 113–118
[2] PremKumar, S., Saminadan, V.: ‘Performance evaluation of smart grid
communication network using MPLS’. 2017 Int. Conf. on Communication
and Signal Processing (ICCSP), Chennai, India, 2017, pp. 2116–2120
[3] Haddaji, N., Nguyen, K., Cheriet, M.: ‘Towards end-to-end integrated optical
packet network: empirical analysis’, Opt. Switch. Netw., 2018, 27, pp. 18–39
[4] Suhaimy, N., Ahmad, W.S.H.M.W., Radzi, N.A.M., et al.: ‘Analysis of
MPLS-TP network for different applications’, Int. J. Eng. Technol., 2018, 7,
pp. 892–898
[5] Eugen, P.: ‘A MPLS simulation for use in design networking for multi site
businesses’, vol XVII(1), Economic Sciences Series (Ovidius University
Annals, Romania, 2017), pp. 373–378
[6] Kurimoto, T., Urushidani, S., Yamada, H., et al.: ‘2017 SINET5: a low-
latency and high-bandwidth backbone network for SDN/NFV era’. SDN-NFV
Track in SAC Symp., Paris, France, 2017
[7] Adewale, A.A., Adagunodo, R.E., John, N.S., et al.: ‘A comparative
simulation study of IP, MPLS, MPLS-TE for latency and packet loss
reduction over a WAN’, Int. J. Netw. Commun., 2016, 6, (1), pp. 1–7
[8] Minei, I., Lucek, J.: ‘MPLS-enabled applications: emerging development and
new technologies’ (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK, 2011)
[9] Shi, T.J., Mohan, G.: ‘An efficient traffic engineering approach based on flow
distribution and splitting in MPLS networks’, Comput. Commun., 2006, 29,
(9), pp. 1284–1291
[10] Din, N.M., Hakimie, H., Fisal, N.: ‘Bandwidth sharing scheme in DiffServ-
aware MPLS networks’. 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. on Telecommunications and
Malaysia Int. Conf. on Communications, Penang, Malaysia, 2007, pp. 782–
787
[11] El-Alfy, E.S., Mujahid, M.S.N., Selim, S.Z.: ‘A pareto-based hybrid
multiobjective evolutionary approach for constrained multipath traffic
engineering optimization in MPLS/GMPLS networks’, J. Netw. Comput.
Appl., 2013, 36, (4), pp. 1196–1207
[12] Awduche, D.O., Jabbari, B.: ‘Internet traffic engineering using multi-protocol
label switching (MPLS)’, Comput. Netw., 2002, 40, (1), pp. 111–129
[13] Srivastava, S., van de Liefvoort, A., Medhi, D.: ‘Traffic engineering of MPLS
backbone networks in the presence of heterogeneous streams’, Comput. Netw.,
2009, 53, (15), pp. 2688–2702
[14] Viswanathan, A., Callon, R., Rosen, E.C.: ‘Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture’, 2001, Available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3031
[15] Yu, X., Xiao, G., Cheng, T.H.: ‘An efficient mechanism for dynamic multicast
traffic grooming in overlay IP/MPLS over WDM networks’, Opt. Fiber
Technol., 2014, 20, (4), pp. 341–352
[16] Soorki, M.N., Rostami, H.: ‘Label switched protocol routing with guaranteed
bandwidth and end to end path delay in MPLS networks’, J. Netw. Comput.
Appl., 2014, 42, pp. 21–38
[17] Arlimatti, S., Hassan, S., Habbal, A., et al.: ‘Software defined network and
openflow: a critical review’, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 2015, 10, (3), pp.
1244–1252
[18] Neghabi, A., Navimipour, N., Hosseinzadeh, M., et al.: ‘Load balancing
mechanisms in the software defined networks: a systematic and
comprehensive review of the literature’, IEEE Access, 2018, 6, pp. 14159–
14178
[19] Kaur, K., Garg, S., Aujla, G.S., et al.: ‘Edge computing in the industrial
internet of things environment: software-defined- networks-based edge-cloud
interplay’, IEEE Commun. Mag., 2018, 56, (2), pp. 44–51
[20] Guo, Y., Wang, Z., Yin, X., et al.: ‘Traffic engineering in hybrid SDN
networks with multiple traffic matrices’, Comput. Netw., 2017, 126, pp. 187–
199
[21] Bahnasse, A., Louhab, F.E., Ait Oulahyane, H., et al.: ‘Novel SDN
architecture for smart MPLS traffic engineering-DiffServ aware
management’, Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 2018, 87, pp. 115–126
[22] Huang, L., Shen, Q., Zhou, F., et al.: ‘Nonuniform bandwidth reservation for
tunnels in MPLS network using meter tables of openFlow’, Trans. Emerg.
Telecommun. Technol., 2018, 29, (5), pp. 1–22
[23] Huang, L., Shen, Q., Zhou, F., et al.: ‘Label space reduction based on LSP
multiplexing in MPLS openflow hybrid network’, Comput. Commun., 2018,
116, pp. 21–34
[24] Mazhin, G.A., Bag-Mohammadi, M., Ghasemi, M., et al.: ‘Multi-layer
architecture for realization of network virtualization using MPLS technology’,
ICT Express, 2017, 3, (1), pp. 43–47
[25] Cao, C., Rouskas, G.N., Wang, J., et al.: ‘Hybrid FRR/p-cycle design for link
and node protection in MPLS networks’, AEU - Int. J. Electron. Commun.,
2013, 67, (6), pp. 470–478
[26] Alouneh, S., Agarwal, A., En-Nouaary, A.: ‘A novel path protection scheme
for MPLS networks using multi-path routing’, Comput. Netw., 2009, 53, (9),
pp. 1530–1545
184
[27] Virk, A.P.S., Boutaba, R.: ‘Economical protection in MPLS networks’,
Comput. Commun., 2006, 29, (3), pp. 402–408
[28] Calle, E., Marzo, J.L., Urra, A.: ‘Protection performance components in
MPLS networks’, Comput. Commun., 2004, 27, (12), pp. 1220–1228
[29] Chen, H., Su, H.K., Cheng, B.C.: ‘An objective-oriented service model for
VoIP overlay networks over diffServ/MPLS networks’, Comput. Commun.,
2007, 30, (16), pp. 3055–3062
[30] He, X., Chu, Q., Zhu, M.: ‘Minimizing preemption cost for path selection in
Diffserv-ware MPLS networks’, Comput. Commun., 2006, 29, (18), pp. 3825–
3832
[31] Kiwon, K., Kwon, T., Kim, S.: ‘Multi-layer resource and path management in
MPLS-TP based packet and optical switched multi-layer transport network’.
Int. Conf. on Information and Communication Technology Convergence
(ICTC), Jeju, Republic of Korea, 2015, pp. 874–879
[32] Hsu, W.-C., Ho, P.-F., Chen, J.-C: ‘Design and implementation of SDN-based
packet transport networks’. Int. Conf. on Wireless Networks, Las Vegas, NV,
USA, 2017, pp. 17–23
[33] Ra, Y., Bang, J., Ryoo, J.-d.: ‘Implementation of FPGA-based MPLS-TP
linear protection switching for 4000+ tunnels in packet transport network for
optical carrier ethernet’, IET Commun., 2018, 13, (5), pp. 481–488
[34] Pijanka, M.M., Rózański, G.W.: ‘Mobile MPLS-TP-support the mobility of
terminal devices using OAM channel’, Int. J. Electron. Telecommun., 2016,
62, (3), pp. 215–223
[35] Hayashitani, M., Hasegawa, Y., Suzuki, K., et al.: ‘Flexible and automated
operational control in SDN transport-base virtual router’. Conf. on Optical
Fiber Communication, Technical Digest Series, San Francisco, CA, USA,
2014, pp. 5–7
[36] Lim, C., Pahk, S., Kim, Y.: ‘Model of Transport SDN and MPLS-TP for T-
SDN controller’. IEEE Int. Conf. on Advanced Communications Technology,
Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, 2016, pp. 522–526
[37] Kurimoto, T., Urushidani, S., Yamada, H., et al.: ‘A fully meshed backbone
network for data-intensive sciences and SDN services’. Int. Conf. on
Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN), Vienna, Austria, August 2016,
vol. 2016, pp. 909–911
[38] Iijima, T., Suzuki, T., Sakamoto, K.: ‘Applying a resource-pooling mechanism
to MPLS-TP networks to achieve service agility’. Cloud Computing 2014:
The Fifth Int. Conf. on Cloud Computing GRIDs, and Virtualization
Applying, Venice, Italy, vol. 15, 2014, pp. 31–36
[39] Kim, D.U., Kim, B., Lee, J.: ‘A protection switching management of two-
layer transport networks with MPLS-TP over OTN’. Int. Conf. on ICT
Convergence 2015: Innovations Toward the IoT, 5G, and Smart Media Era
(ICTC 2015), Jeju, Republic of Korea, 2015, pp. 280–284
[40] Kolhar, M., Abualhaj, M.M., Rizwan, F.: ‘QoS design consideration for
enterprise and provider's network at ingress and egress router for VoIP
protocols’, Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., 2016, 6, (1), pp. 235–241
[41] Sul, D.-m., Byun, S.-h., Kim, T.-i., et al.: ‘A return path bandwidth
management method for point to multipoint in MPLS-TP’. Int. Conf. on
Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), Busan,
Republic of Korea, 2014, pp. 794–797
[42] Blair, S.M., Booth, C.D., Michielsen, J., et al.: ‘Application of MPLS-TP for
transporting power system protection data’. 2016 IEEE Int. Conf. on Smart
Grid Communications (SmartGridComm 2016), Sydney, Australia, 2016, pp.
619–624
[43] Bächli, R., Kranich, M., Häusler, M., et al.: ‘Teleprotection ensuring highest
performance of the protection system using packet switched wide area
networks (D2/B5 )’. 2016 CIGRÉ Canada Conf., Vancouver, Canada, 2016,
pp. 1–8
[44] Kim, D.U., Ryoo, J.D., Cheung, T., et al.: ‘Enhanced linear protection
switching methods supporting dual node interconnection in packet transport
networks’, J. Lightwave Technol., 2018, 36, (13), pp. 2638–2650
[45] Rodríguez-Pérez, F.-J., González-Sánchez, J.-L., Cortés-Polo, D., et al.: ‘A
delay-oriented prioritization policy based on cooperative lossless buffering in
PTN domains’, J. Netw. Syst. Manage., 2015, 23, (4), pp. 1016–1033
[46] Azizi, M., Benaini, R., Mamoun, M.B.: ‘Delay measurement in openflow-
enabled MPLS-TP network’, Mod. Appl. Sci., 2015, 9, (3), pp. 90–101
[47] Francisco-Javier, R., Jose-Luis, G., David, C., et al.: ‘An OAM function to
improve the packet loss in MPLS-TP domains for prioritized QoS-aware
services’, Int. J. Commun. Syst., 2010, 23, (5), pp. 633–652
[48] Choi, J.S.: ‘Design and implementation of a stateful PCE-based unified
control and management framework for carrier-grade MPLS-TP networks’, J.
Lightwave Technol., 2016, 34, (3), pp. 836–844
[49] Addeo, C., Cazzaniga, G., Crescentini, R., et al.: ‘On QoS mechanism
profiling in MPLS-TP transport networks’, Bell Labs Tech. J., 2014, 18, (4),
pp. 3–17
[50] Negi, V., Kumar, U., Pandey, T., et al.: ‘Building an MPLS-TP simulator’.
2012 17th European Conf. on Networks and Optical Communications,
Vilanova I La Geltru, Spain, 2012
[51] Orawiwattanakul, T., Otsuki, H., Shimojo, S., et al.: ‘Authorization-based
approach for customized automated resource provisioning services’. 10th EAI
Int. Conf. on Testbeds and Research Infrastructures for the Development of
Networks and Communities (TRIDENTCOM 2015), Vancouver, Canada,
2015, pp. 1–6
[52] Cortés-Polo, D., González-Sánchez, J.L., Carmona-Murillo, J., et al.:
‘Proposal and analysis of integrated PTN architecture in the mobile backhaul
to improve the QoS of HetNets’, EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw., 2015,
116, (1)
[53] Garcia, R.C., Daza, B.S.R., Salcedo, O.J.: ‘Evaluation of quality service voice
over internet protocol in WiMAX networks based on IP/MPLS environment’.
Proc. 11th ACM Symp. on QoS and Security for Wireless and Mobile
Networks, Cancun, Mexico, 2015, pp. 59–66
[54] Rassaki, A., Nel, A.: ‘Optimising capacity assignment in multiservice MPLS
networks’, S. Afr. Comput. J., 2017, 29, pp. 69–89
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
[55] Kim, D.-U., Lee, J.Y., Ryoo, J.-d., et al.: ‘Protection switching methods for
point-to-multipoint connections in packet transport networks’, ETRI J., 2016,
38, (1), pp. 18–29
[56] Sakamoto, K., Hoshihara, H., Kubo, H., et al.: ‘Bandwidth control using
adaptive packet policer management for packet transport network based on
service layer request’, Electron. Commun. Jpn., 2016, 99, (8), pp. 38–47
[57] Samitier, C., Mesbah, M.: ‘Utility communication networks and services:
specification, deployment and operation’ (Springer International Publishing,
Switzerland, 2017)
IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 2, pp. 177-185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
[58] Cigré: ‘utility communication networks and services’ (Springer International
Publishing, Switzerland, 2017)
[59] Roth, C., Bächli, R., Häusler, M., et al.: ‘How to prepare the communication
infrastructure for future smart grid applications Oman electricity transmission
company SAOC (OETC) sultanate of Oman’. CIGRE Int. Conf. and 22nd
Exhibition for Electrical Equipment, Muscat, Oman, 2017, pp. 1–9
[60] Ramirez, J., Cabrera, H., Bautista, O.: ‘MPLS-TP as packet platform for
critical services in power transmission’. CIGRE Int. Conf. and 21st Exhibition
for Electrical Equipment, Paris, France, 2016, vol. 6, pp. 1–14
185